|
All Questions Answered by
Rabbi Joseph Blair Question: About the Six Remembrances. Lots of discussion about the six themselves. But some history and context please. When does the very idea of "the six" enter Jewish theological, textual or liturgical history? Do the rabbis discuss why God nominated THESE six, and not six others? Please advise
I think that my colleagues have offered you good answers to your question.
I would only want to add that memory is essential. Without remembering our history we would not be who we are today. It is because of that which came before that we have been formed and shaped to become the person(s) we are now.
The six remembrenaces are key events. We could perhaps argue that we could substitute others for some of these, but that is more about details than about the process of memory shaping us. I would point to the larger questions concerning not what we remember so much as what that remembrance does. These items are very much Jewishly formative; what remembrances are formative for other religions and cultures? Can we be formed from remembrances coming from multiple sources? What does that do to the formative process?
Thank you for an interesting question.
Question: What are the obligations of the community to the individual?
What is the responsibility of a synagogue to a Jewish member,specifically in terms of helping that congregant deal with extraordinary stresses of his/her life?
What responsibility does the community organization have to that member, and particularly in regard to informing them of consequences of their behavior in advance?
I know of a case in which an active member of the Jewish community (one who has contributed much time to the synagogue and has been extremely supportive to individuals in need) was ordered not to continue to have contact with the clergy for personal matters as a condition of continued membership. When the member violated this restriction (by leaving a telephone message for a clergy person when in distress), the congregant was told she/he could not at any time enter the doors of the synagogue at the threat of calling the police.
The congregant did not receive advanced notice of this, but was told by a custodian upon coming to services that she/he could not enter.
What Jewish values address this situation?
It is impossible to answer this question meaningfrully as posed. Too many details are missing, the situation is not clear, and it can only be addressed by someone 'on the ground' at the location, who can ascerttain all the relevant facts and details to be able to render any sort of reasonaed and meaningful evaluation. It would be inappropriate for someone not familiar with the full situation to wade in.
I am sorry you are distressed, and that you are not findng support that you thought you were eligible to receive. I hope you have found another spiritual home, and that you are being offered the support and comfort you want and need.
I wish you all the best.
Question: My wife of 19.5 years gave a non-Jew oral sex. We are a frum Orthodox family. I am a kohen. I was wondering if her act renders her assur (forbidden) to me. Must I divorce her? What is the halachah and what Jewish values are at stake here?
I am so sorry to hear this - it must be quite painful for you to have learned this.
You have the Halachic responses from my colleagues.
I think that the issue is less about Halachah, and more about healing and your emotional health.
I don't think anyone can tell you what to do.
You need to decide what you want to happen.
Do you want to work on fixing this relationship?
Do you feel you need to end it?
Can you recover from this?
You may benefit from finding a professional who can counxel you and help you work through this to decice the outcome you want to achieve. They can then advise you on what the next steps would be.
I wish you all the best as you approach this. I hope it works out well for you, and all concerned.
Question: Hello,
I am currently converting to Judaism, and am nearing the end of my conversion. One reason I began this process was because I discovered that my mother’s family was Jewish a few generations ago. Apparently they assimilated or converted out because of anti-Semitism. While it occurs on my mother’s mother’s side (far back, however, not very recent) the only “proof” I have is that of a few family traditions and the knowledge of other family members that we “were all Jewish” I also have reason to believe that some of my family who did not emigrate were victims in the Shoah. While I feel the process of converting is valuable for me personally, I often wonder if, with some research, I would be able to prove that I’m already Jewish. One rabbi that I know puts very little weight to this, almost as if my Jewish heritage doesn’t matter, and that I should just focus on my own spiritual journey. I find that hurtful, especially given the whole background of my situation. I don’t want to act as if my Jewish family never existed! Somehow I want my conversion to be an honor to them and a remembrance for them. What are some ways to approach this situation that balances both the doubt about whether or not I am halachically Jewish with sensitivity towards my Jewish heritage and towards my ancestors who evidently suffered for being Jewish? [Administrator's note: Jewish Values Online cannot advise you on your personal situation. For that sort of advice, please see the Rabbi with whom you are working toward conversion.]
No answer can be definitevely given by anyone who is not the rabbi involved in your conversion.
I am sorry you find this painful or hurtful. Think of it as removing any doubt, and perhaps it will be less so.
You must follow the process set out by the sponsoring rabbi. Whatever it may be, so long as it is reasonable and not abusive. If you don't believe or feel you can work with this rabbi, find another one to sponsor your conversion process that you can work with and trust.
Know that a break in Jewish practiice of one or more generations is felt to be a cut off of any link by some. The assimilation or conversion out of Judaism means that you are not considered Jewish; the link was broken. It is not simply biological, so your assumption that you could 'prove' Jewish ancestry and therefore be accepted is mistaken.
The actual Reform standard is that you must be born to a Jewish parent, AND raised in Judaims (generally, only in Judaism), AND undertake a Jewish education, AND Jewish rituals of identification (Naming, Consecration, B'nai Mitzvah, etc.). Only then is your Judaism fully accepted.
I hope that your conversion process is proceeding smoothly, or is completed at this time, and that you are now feeling happy about the process.
Good luck.
Question: Is cremation and burial in a mausoleum okay in Judaism?
You have been told the Halachic answer, and given a Conservative response.
The Reform response is a little leas absolute, but not that different.
.
Reform thinking has been that cremation is not desirable or in keeping with Jewish tradition, and it is strongly discouraged.
In keeping with Reform principles, however, this is not an absolute prohibition; it is a strong urging. It is still within the range of choices of the individual or the family to choose cremation. There may be ritual consequences based on that choice - this can vary between locations.
There are several issues to consider.
1. Every cemetery sets its' own rules (unless it is owned by another entity, which then makes those rules). This also )(perhaps particularly) goes for Jewish cemeteries.
Cemeteries may not permit butial of cremated remains at all, or they may permit burial of cremated remains in a standard grave, or they may have burial of cremated remains in only specific areas, such as a columbarium, or a scattering garden.
2. Every Reform rabbi makes their own determination as to what ceremonies they will officiate and under what circumstances. Some will officiate at a 'funeral' for cremated remains, others will only offer a memorial service, many may participate in some form of burial ceremony, few will participate in a scattering of the ground bone dust.
3. Congregations may have rules about ceremonies taking place in the building that include cremated remains; I am not .aware of any Reform congregations that will not permit a memorial service when a cremation has taken place, but most do not permit the cremated remains to be brought into the facility.
4. In past, the traditional preparation of the body before the funeral (Taharah) will not be done for a body that was to be cremated, particularly if the group that performs the ceremony is traditional; today in many places there are now more and more groups that consider themselves to be progressive or liberal Taharah teams, and they will perform the ceremony in those circumstances.
The use of a Mausoleum is an entirely different issue, but the considerations may be the same, It is not clear,. The anser depenindsont he part of the courntry, what the cemetery permits, what the rabbi will do, and so on. Without knowing which cemetery, this is much more difficutl to answer.
I would suggest you ask the rabbi who would be likely officiating, and let them tell you what options exist.
I hope that this is a pre-planning situation, and you have many years before you need to deal with these questions.
Question: I am 79 yrs old an recently remarried. My eldest child, age 47 is not excepting and even shunning my wife. Should I leave him out of my will and trust according to Jewish Law?
I am sorry you are experiencing this - it is clearly painful to you.
I hope that it will resolve in a way that will be best for all concerned.
Although there is no absolute prohibition in Judaism on disinheriting a child, it is a dire response, and should be avoided in all but the most egregious circumstances. I cannot advise you about what to do. I hope you will find a way to speak with your child and find out why they are responding as they have. Perhaps they are in pain about the loss of their mother; perhaps they are concerned that you are endangered in some way by this marriage; perhaps they have another reason altogether. Until you know what they are thinking, and why they are reacting as they do, it is difficult to know how to respond.
I hope for a positive outcome - splits within a family are tragic in most instances. I would hope this one is not necessary.
Best of wishes for a succesful and happy outcome.
Question: Both my parents are Jewish. I live as a Jew, embrace Jewish values and culture, and believe in Jesus as the Messiah. I identify as a Messianic Jew.
My question: Most rabbis dispute the validity of my faith and assert that I have lost my right to be called a Jew. I am troubled and perplexed by this prejudice. Why is there an empathetic understanding towards Messianic Chabadniks or Jewish Buddhists (JUBUs) but not towards Messianic Jews? Why am I ostracized while secular, atheist and non-believing Jews are accepted?
[Administrator's note: A very similar question was posted and answered at http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=139. Messianics are not Jews by the definition of any branch of Judaism.]
The reasons Messianics are not Jews and will not be accepted have been stated multiple times. [For a summary listing of what others have said on JVO, see Rabbi Ophir's detailed answer to this question.] It seems to me that you are actually not asking why Judaism doesn't accept your faith and include you, but instead claiming it is 'not fair' that you can't have what you want, when others (JuBus, for example) are accepted. I would respond by pointing out that you are trying to compare those (such as yourself) who have a completely foreign theology and faith with those (the others you mention) who have not rejected or severed their ties to Judaism or Jewish belief. The Chabadniks you mention have not claimed that the Rebbe was G-d (Heaven forfend!), or if any of them have, I (and I hope the entire Jewish world) would reject them as Jews, just as I do Messianics.
Atheists claim there is no G-d, but they do not worship another.
JuBus hold the Buddha as a teacher who was enlightened, perhaps even perfected, but not as G-d.
Your analogy is flawed, and inapplicable.
No one is challenging your faith. Rabbi Greenwald puts it well. You can believe what you wish, and live as you wish. We do, however, reject that you can be a Jew if you hold that faith, and object to you trying to claim a place in our community. I would say that to call yourself a Jew is at best misleading, and more often simply deceptive and false. As an ethical choice, it would seem to me that if you hold your Christian beliefs sincerely, you would want to be open and upfront about them, and not be engaged in trying to mislead others about who/what you are and what you believe. You have made your choice of belief. Live by it, and please stop trying to claim something you rejected and walked away from as still yours. Question: May a couple who have been converted in Masorti (connected with Conservative) Judaism celebrate a Jewish marriage ceremony in an Orthodox synagogue?
In truth, the answer will depend. It will depend on the standards and requirements for conversion of the rabbi and members of the Beit Din that conducted the conversion, what requirements and rituals were included in the conversion, what the intention of the parties was and is, what the observance level of the couple was and is, if the Orthodox rabbi (and Orthodox community) accept the witness and members of the Beit din, and many other factors. There is no hard and fast answer, but most often, I would guess, the Orthodox rabbi and community would say no out of a sense of caution or concern about the standards used and whether those standards met the requirements of Jewish Law (Halachah) as that Orthodox rabbi and community understand and follow them. There may be exceptions, or special circumstances, but if you wish to avoid being refused, you would probably be best served by approaching a Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, or other affiliated congregation. Of course, I hope that you understand that I am answering as a Reform rabbi, and cannot speak for rabbis from the Orthodox stream of Judaism, but I would guess the answer in the situation you describe is likely no. Rabbi Joe Blair Question: JTA is reporting that a New York area rabbi has invoked Mesira as a legal defense. How is this concept reconciled with dina d'malkhuta dina? Which concept is paramount?
The topic of ‘mesira’ has been raised in this and two other questions on Jewish Values Online, specifically; http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=700, and http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=701. My colleagues have done an excellent job of laying out what the concept of mesira is and why it existed, how it is balanced with the concept of dina d’malchuta dina (the law of the land is the law), and that in many (most) instances for Jews living in a non-hostile society (in regard to laws and governance) such as the United States or Canada (for example), it is not appropriate to invoke it, or applicable to the situation. Those rabbis who are invoking mesira are doing their communities no favors, and their actions may even rise to the criminal legal level of ‘accessory after the fact’ if they know a crime has been committed and seek to ‘cover it up’. Dina d’malchuta dina comes into play in that there is a compact that goes with citizenship. When one is or becomes a citizen, they agree to abide by the laws of the land. For Jews, this concept is understood to mean that they obey the laws unless and until those laws are in direct contradiction of Torah law (so, for example, a law that one must consume pork products would absolutely be a law that Jews would have a reason to violate; but a law that reckless driving is forbidden would not). Laws protecting children from molestation are certainly not in contradiction to Torah law. Laws protecting people from being swindled by con men, however pious they may appear, are also not in contradiction of Torah law. Anyone who is a citizen is obliged to follow the law; with the sole caveat stated for Jews. Failure to do so is a violation of secular law, and of Torah law as well because of the principle of dina d’malchuta dina. The concept (and worldview) on which I presume the rabbis who are invoking mesira in good faith are really acting in situations such as this is that they think they are ‘protecting’ their community’. The thinking (as I can follow it) is that ‘it is better to let this guilty person off the hook for their criminal acts than to subject the community to the intrusion and possible attack of those outside the community’. This utterly mistaken view seems to underlie their actions, leaving perpetrators to continue to prey on others without retribution, out of a fear that innocent community members (or the community itself; or in a less generous view, the institutions of the community – often organizations which these rabbis run and are employed by - and thereby benefit from – will be damaged). The entire issue of raising a ‘defense’ by invoking mesira for failure to fulfill the basic obligations of citizenship (reporting a crime, protecting victims) in the context of non-hostile societies is today more of an excuse than a need or a legitimate concern, and should be ended immediately. My thinking is this. Those who are guilty of a criminal action are subject to the penalty meted out for that action by the system of law (and, it is hoped, of justice). Anyone standing in the way of this occurring is ‘obstructing justice’ (and giving false witness or failing to step forward as a witness) and are thus violating the law. This is certainly the secular law, and it seems to me that it is in accord with Halachah. The claim of mesira in this context is used as the basis of the choice not to report the crimes of the alleged perpetrator because the community in which the guilty party lives could be harmed by exposing that individual, in that opprobrium would be directed at the community (not focused solely on the specific individuals whose actions are reported) for the actions (crimes) of the alleged perpetrators, making others in that community, who are innocent in this regard, suffer, and causing harm to them. In shorthand language, it would be ‘a shanda for the Jews’ to let others know about this. The historic concern on which this use of the concept rests is that the surrounding dominant culture residents would use this as an excuse to attack the Jews living there (initiating a pogrom, for example). This was historically a valid fear, but it has no place today in free, democratic societies that follow the rule of law, such as the U.S., Canada, Great Britain, Australia, etc. The extension of this idea to the shunning or attacking of the victims of the perpetrators if they report the crime is utterly repulsive and self-serving, and in my view makes those who call for it pepetrators of another ‘shanda for the Jews’, by blaming the innocent victims and serving as false judges, teaching false Torah, and causing the community to sin. Far from righteous behavior, these actions are criminal, conspiratorial, and unethical, compounding the very criminal action that occurred, re-victimizing the victims, and forcing the entire community to become complicit. It may be a bit extreme, but in this light I see little distinction between ‘I was just following my rabbi’s directions’ and ‘I was just following orders’. The short answer is that I see no reason today in any democratic, stable nation that follows the rule of law that the ‘defense’ of mesira is legitimate. Question: Why is there a Jewish leap year this year? (2014?)
An interesting question. Here is what I wrote for the monthly newsletter at the congregations I serve. It is necessarily a very abbreviated response: there are entire books dedicated to the mathematics and explanation of this topic. As I write this, we are moving towards the end of Shevat and the start of the month of Adar 1. It is Adar 1 (rather than simply Adar) because this is a ‘leap year’ on the Jewish calendar. There will be 13 months this year. The way this is arranged is that we insert a second month of Adar, so the first one is Adar 1, and the second is Adar 2. The reason for this is the re-calibration of the calendar, pulling a mostly lunar calendar back into alignment with the solar calendar.
This is necessary because a lunar calendar is 354 days in length, which is 11 days shorter than the average solar cycle. This difference is why we always hear (and feel) ‘the holidays are early this year’. In the years with no leap year, the Jewish holidays, though on the same day in the Jewish calendar, appear to be earlier on the solar calendar, moving as much as 33 days ‘back’. Then, in the leap years, the holidays are pushed thirty days ‘ahead’ on the solar calendar, so we hear it said that ‘the holidays are late this year’. Really, the holidays are always on the same date, but the correlation of that date with the secular calendar varies by more than a month, so it seems that they are ‘moving around’. If no adjustment is made, the lunar and solar years would get farther and farther out of synch, and holidays would come 11 days sooner on the solar calendar each year, moving ‘backwards’ through the year. After approximately 33 years, a holiday would come approximately 365 days early, which would make them appear to be ‘on time’ on the solar calendar, but in reality they would be much earlier, a whole year earlier. That process would continue indefinitely. The result is that, for example, Passover, our Spring season holiday, could be at celebrated at ANY time of the year. Side note: This is how the Islamic calendar works; the holiday of Ramadan, for example, is not fixed to any season, and ‘moves’ or ‘floats’ on the secular calendar from year to year. There is no adjustment made to the Islamic calendar to re-calibrate with the solar calendar. To adjust the solar and lunar schedules for the Jewish calendar, a complicated formula is used which works in nineteen year cycles. Seven of the nineteen years in a given cycle are leap years in the Jewish calendar, and a 30 day month is added to the calendar in those years. That added month is Adar 2. The adjustments are amazingly accurate. The calculations that date back to before the Mishnah (roughly 200 years before the Common Era) were really precise; the only thing not accounted for in them is the rotation of the earth and how that affects the calendar, introducing (as I vaguely understand it) an approximately 2 hour difference per century. I am not a ‘math person’ – and this degree of accuracy at that time in history is rather astonishing and amazing to me! I hope this answers your question. Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: During the three weeks (of mourning for the destruction of the Temple, between the 17th of Tammuz and the 9th of Av) can I get a haircut on erev Shabbos (the eve of Sabbath) or on Rosh Chodesh (the start of the new month) [i.e., what is the custom/minhag during this period]?
Shalom.
I note that your question is specifically NOT what does Halachah/Jewish Law say about this matter. You ask about minhag/custom.
Answering you from that perspective, I would point out that minhagim/customs differ in various communities. Clearly, in a very devout or observant community, the custom would follow the Halachah, and few or no persons would get a haircut as you describe the situation. On the other hand, in a community where the bulk of the members were Reform, this would be a matter of personal decision, and some might refrain, while others (perhaps the majority) would have the haricut.
The question you ask presupposes a universal response, and that just isn't likely.
The situation is not unlike the concern about naming a child: in the Ashkenazic Jewish community, it would be considered against the prevailing custom/minhag to name after a living relative, while in the Sephardic Jewish community, it would be considered in keeping with the prevailing custom/minhag to name after a living relative. Minhagim/customs differ from community to community, place to place, and tme to time.
If you are asking whether you should go against a prevailing minhag/custom, I would suggest that the presumption should be no, you should not violate minhag/custom, at least not without a very good reason. This same idea is expressed well in the English adage, 'When in Rome, do as the Romans.' That works, insofar as the 'Romans' we are talking about your those in the community you come from.
I hope that this has helped to answer your concern.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: For many years I have stayed up most of the night. I am concerned that this is a sin against G-d. If i worked on it I could sleep at night like other people and be more active during the day. I wonder about this - what does Jewish tradition or law say about this?
Shalom,
I don't believe that you need to be concerned about your late hours being a sin against G-d.
Jewish law does not address this in specific.
Jewish sages and scholars of the past have had some very 'non-traditional' schedules. I am thinking here about the Iggeret from Rambam to a friend, in which he describes his normal schedule. What he lays out as the usual pattern for him strikes me as brutal. In the end he counsels the friend that he is welcome to come visit, and would be welcome, but the only time available for visiting would be the two hours a night that Maimonides would otherwise sleep - the other 22 were already completely committed! In comparison this this sort of pattern, your more nocturnal (reversed day-night) pattern seems fairly tame.
As other rabbis will certainly tell you, the issue is not when you sleep specifically, but that you sleep enough to be healthy, and that you not use your non-traditional pattern as a way to avoid contact with others.
I think that if you examine your well-being, and your motivations for the nocturnal pattern, if there is no cause for concern in either area, this is nothing that approaches 'sin'; and if it is the way your body functions best, and you are able to maintain your relationships and meet your obligations to others and yourself, it is not a reason to be concerned.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: Why does G-d make so many people go through prejudice? Why did G-d let there be slaves in the USA if it already happened in Egypt? Does he care? [JVO Kids: 4-6]
It sounds to me that in your question you are starting with the idea that G-d is making prejudice and causing injustice in the world. Is that what you mean? Is G-d prejudiced? Is G-d unjust? That doesn’t sound right, to me.
What if it is not G-d, but people who are responsible? After all, we are told that we are given ‘free will’ – a fancy word for having a choice in how we behave and act. That means we can do bad things, even when we know they are wrong. It wouldn’t change what happened, but maybe it would change how we see it, and help us to make it better to think about it that way. Anytime you say something about a person or group that is something negative about them because of their beliefs or anything about themselves they can’t change, you are expressing prejudice. But if you are expressing prejudice, then the question is not about G-d! I would say that prejudice is never about G-d. It is about how you or I am choosing to act in that moment. An example: If I have a prejudice against people with freckles, and I make fun of them, or treat them badly, I am acting out of prejudice, and as a bigot. I might be afraid of people with freckles – but I have a choice about whether I will act with prejudice or not – and if I can overcome my prejudice, I might just come to learn that people with freckles are good folks. If people are the problem, and people have free will, then mistakes can be made again. There is nothing to prevent me from making the same mistake as someone else made in the past – making the same mistake again is not saying that G-d is responsible for it this time, any more than in the past. If we don’t choose to learn from our history, that is our own choice and fault, not G-d’s. Finally, you ask if G-d cares. I don’t know if anyone can say for sure, but I certainly believe that G-d does care. We have the Mitzvot (commandments) to help us live godly and good lives. That is a gift to us from G-d, and you don’t usually give gifts unless you care about the person to whom you give them. So I would say yes, G-d does care. Question: How important is it that my wedding is catered kosher, if I myself don't keep kosher? What Jewish values, moral, or ethical positions are involved?
The first thing I must ask in responding are two questions:
To whom, and For whom?
These in turn presuppose many other questions.
Since you don't observe kashrut, the kosher status of the food served seems not to be a significant concern for you personally.
Might this affect your fiancee?
Does this affect any of your family who may attend the reception (parents, siblings, extended family)?
What about your fiancee's family members?
Does it affect any of your friends or invited guests?
Does it affect the organization or venue in which you are holding the event (is it at a synagogue, a kosher facility, or a Jewish institution)?
After answering all those questions, you have a sense of who may be directly affected.
Now, how about any indirect effects?
Will this reflect badly on your family, the institution, the officiant, or your community?
What are your values around the issues of community, religious observance, welcoming others, having a Jewish home, living a Jewish lifestyle, making a statement about what is important, and balancing cost and convenience with principles?
Once you have answered these things for yourself, you will have a clearer picture of what makes sense to you.
Judaism teaches that we should seek to act in such a way as to bring credit to ourself and our community, to be concerned with others, to offer hospitality and be welcoming, to make our choices in an aware and conscous fashion that takes into account how they will impact others.
If these are values you share, then it is probably important that you focus on obseerving kashrut at your wedding. It is, I assume, a Jewish celebration of the creation of a Jewish family and a Jewish home.
Does this mean that you have to follow the most stringent standards? Perhaps not. That will depend.
If you wish, perhaps you can serve only vegetarian food, or stick with kosher fish, or offer only dairy items, in that case it will be much easier to follow kosher rules and still provide food that you and everyeone else will enjoy.
Alternatively, I have heard that some choose, (if the venue and caterer have no concerns with it, and the community/guests will accept it), to offer your guests a choice of (one or more) strictly kosher items as well as options for some that are not strictly kosher - so that those who are concerned with observing Kashrut may do so, and others will not. It seems to me that even though this is not the most strict approach, it might work for you. In this case, however, I would still caution you not to serve anything that is inherently treif (unfit for a kosher facility), such as seafood, pork, or mixed millk & meat products).
I would urge you to give this consideration, and to weigh in terms not only of cost, but of what statement you are making and what values you are expressing.
Ideally, if cost were no issue, it would be appropriate to have a strictly kosher affair so that any Jew could partake in complete comfort and confidence that they were following their religious beliefs and values. Only you can actually determine how best you can balance the varies Jewish values that are in play here. If you are still in doubt, you might consider consulting the rabbi who will be officiating at your wedding for advice.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: If three people are in love and respect, and accept not being in a monogamous relationship, can they have that relationship in Judaism? Would that be accepted by halachah?
Our patriarchs were not monogamous. Why them do we understand only monogamy as the acceptable practice today?
Would not acceptance of non-monogamous relationships help to address and reduce the pain of betrayal, which is unfortunately so common, because we are subjected to the ideology and restrictions of monogamy?
Is it time to return to the idea of a concubine or pilegesh within halachic Judaism?
My learned colleagues have discussed what they conclude, and how they would interpret and apply the Halachah (Jewish Law) in this instance. I have no disagreement with what they have said in that regard, and would say if you are asking about Halachah and non-monogamous relationships, you have the answer: it may have been permissible in past (biblical times), but it is not today.
Parenthetically, that result strikes me as no different than the concept of slavery: accepted in past, outlawed today. I don’t hear too many arguing for a return to slavery; why should biblical non-monogamy be treated any differently?
My belief is that understanding and moral stature grow and change (in persons and in societies), the application of the law evolves (which is shown in changes through the system of precedents despite something being other than what was ‘always done before’), and we adapt – the short, snappy, and somewhat flip response that comes to mind here, is ‘get with the program, get over it, and get real.’
What you describe is an extended ménage a trois, not a marriage. A marriage is an arrangement where the parties have statuses that confer specific defined rights, responsibilities, and privileges in that relationship and in society, and those rights are protected by society. This is true both for civil and Jewish law.
By definition, the parties in the arrangement you describe have different, unequal, and unclear statuses in that relationship, nor are rights that some or all of the parties can have identified or protectable by the mechanism of the society/state (any such rights are questionable: both as to what these would be, as well as what it would mean for other societally recognized matters).
It seems to me, off the top of my head, that recognition of this status could potentially butt up against the category of adultery ( given a FMM group), which would be a fundamental change to Jewish law - and raise a massive number of issues in the areas of divorce, property rights, financial support, child protection and custody, ‘palimony’, and so on. What if one spouse and the new partner decide they are tired of the other spouse -can they just dump that other -legally married- spouse or must there be a divorce? Is that different if the married pair tire of the non-married partner? Can one or two of the partners bring in someone new? Why is it limited to three partners – what happens if one of the partners brings home someone they find attractive – can they introduce them into the relationship as a new spouse? Who has what rights, and how will they be enforced? This may sound wonderful to someone who wants to have more than one sexual partner, but what kind of relationship or commitment is that, really? If you can have sex with these two, what should limit you from having sex with someone or anyone else? That is not a committed relationship, only a situation for physical gratification, and there is no mechanism to protect the parties. Frankly, the question arises why you would even want this? In today’s ‘hookup’ culture, with all the couples that swing and swap, why is a formal arrangement of this sort needed? Why must you insist that others in society agree and support your choices regarding sexual behavior? We are talking now about Jewish law, not civil law. It is not Jewish law that criminalizes this behavior, but it does prohibit it, just as it prohibits any form of relationship that is abusive, exploitative, or inherently unfair. In conclusion, I am against this. I see it as abusive and exploitative. I would say that if you can’t practice monogamy, don’t marry, and don’t seek to force society to support your choices and lifestyle. Question: What qualifies a cemetery as a "Jewish cemetery"?
Thank you for writing.
There is some unclarity about this, so after I looked around and spoke to some colleagues, and did a it of research, I went to my respected teacher who has written extensively in the area of death, dying, funerals, and related matters. Rabbi Stuart Kelman is the Dean of the Gamliel Institute http://www.gamliel.org/, and one of the instructors for Kavod v"Nichum http://www.jewish-funerals.org/, What he responded in asnwer to this question was:
"As far as I know, a cemetery is a piece of land owned in perpetuity by the Jewish community. It is consecrated by a ceremony. When cemeteries are created, the owners set specific rules as to who may or may not be buried there. There are those who argue that every grave, when purchased by an individual, is in fact, 'kever shelo' - and may be considered a 'cemetery'".
What makes a cemetery (or cemetery plot) Jewish, is that it is set apart with a visible boundary of some sort, consecrated by a ceremony, and is in fact used for burial of a Jew or Jews,
That means there are many variations on what may constitute a Jewish cemetery from a single grave, to a family plot, to a specific community group plot, to an open communal cemetery. The specific rules and restrictions are set and administered by the group that owns, operates, or maintains that cemetery.
Often there are corporate or communal norms or restrictions on what is permissible: what sort of monuments, markers, gravestones, headstones, footstones, vaults, crypts,or on what may be displayed or included on such monuments, what decorations or plantings may be placed, use of liners or vaults, types of caskets, burial of cremains, what sort of ceremonies are allowed, who may be buried in which sections, etc.
I hope that this is helpful.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: Is gelatin kosher?
Thank you for writing.
You will note that this is a question that doesn’t have a completely firm and fixed response when answered from a Halachic (Jewish law) perspective, as is seen in the excellent responses of my colleagues. The answer can vary, depending on the theory with which one approaches the status of gelatin (or some other products that are sometimes manufactured from differing materials).
When giving more weight to the source of the ingredients (animal, vegetable, artificial), the answer may be one thing, while an answer based on giving more weight to the procedures and techniques involved (chemical processes, physical and chemical composition and breakdown, etc.), the answer may be different. That is why it is possible to find some marshmallows that are marked as Kosher for Passover, but they are not all accepted universally by those who follow the rules of Kashrut.
Gelatin conceptually in and of itself is not unkosher.
Traditionally, it is determined to be kosher or not depending on the source.
Gelatin from a pig would not be kosher.
Gelatin from a cow could be kosher – but it would raise the concern about how it was prepared, and if the animal was slaughtered according to kosher standards. It would also raise the further question as to whether it was meat or not for use in various recipes, following the concern of maintaining a separation of meat and dairy products in Kosher observance.
Gelatin from a fish or a plant would also likely be kosher (if it was a kosher fish), and would not be considered meat or dairy, so might be usable with either. Gelatin manufactured from completely artificial sources (chemically produced in a factory vat from raw materials that are not derived from fish, meat, or plants) would also likely be considered kosher, and would not be considered meat or dairy. Responding to you from a strictly Reform perspective, the answer once again is not entirely clear. There are Reform Jews who do not follow the rules of Kashrut at all, or at least, not in this matter, and for them, there is effectively no question to answer – they would find any gelatin from any source acceptable for use. There are other Reform Jews who do follow the rules of Kashrut, at least to some degree or in some fashion. Among them, there are Reform Jews who would accept that the processes change the nature of the material to such a degree that the source is irrelevant, and they would accept gelatin from any source as usable for their purposes. Their reasoning is different than the group that does not follow the rules of Kashrut, but the effect may be the same. Another subset is those Reform Jews who do follow the rules of Kashrut, and who would be concerned with the source of the ingredients. For these people, if it is a non-kosher source, they would not accept it, if it is a kosher source, they would. So even among the Reform Jews (perhaps it would be better to say ‘among Progressive Jews’), there are some/many who would say yes to your question, but there are still some who would say no. Thus, you have a very rabbinic answer – ‘It depends.’ :-) Rabbi Joe Blair Question: I came upon a group called the Black Hebrew Israelites in New York when I was there a couple of days ago and they were talking about how they are the first original Jews and that the whites are trying to replace them. Is this true and do they have any proof like genetics that can see if they are really the original Jews?
I can assure you that this is not true, there is no proof that they are of Jewish descent, and their existence as a group is relatively short. You can read their history on Wikipedia here.
The relevant material there states: “Black Hebrew Israelites (also Black Hebrews, African Hebrew Israelites, and Hebrew Israelites) are groups of people mostly of Black African ancestry situated mainly in the United States who believe they are descendants of the ancient Israelites. Black Hebrews adhere in varying degrees to the religious beliefs and practices of mainstream Judaism. They are generally not accepted as Jews by the greater Jewish community, and many Black Hebrews consider themselves—and not mainstream Jews—to be the only authentic descendants of the ancient Israelites. Many choose to self-identify as Hebrew Israelites or Black Hebrews rather than as Jews. Dozens of Black Hebrew groups were founded during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In the mid-1980s, the number of Black Hebrews in the United States was between 25,000 and 40,000.” “In the late 19th century among some African-Americans, an identification with the ancient Hebrews developed into an identification as ancient Hebrews. One of the first groups of Black Hebrews, the Church of God and Saints of Christ, was founded in 1896. During the following decades, many more Black Hebrew congregations were established. These groups claimed descent from the ancient Israelites. They selected elements of Judaism and adapted them within a structure similar to that of the Black church. The beliefs and practices of Black Hebrew groups vary considerably. The differences are so great that historian James Tinney has suggested the classification of the organizations into three groups: Black Jews, who maintain a Christological perspective and adopt Jewish rituals; Black Hebrews, who are more traditional in their practice of Judaism; and Black Israelites, who are most nationalistic and furthest from traditional Judaism.” Needless to say, although some members of these groups may claim to be directly descended from the ancient Hebrews or Israelites, there is little or no basis for such a claim, and it is not supported by any facts or historical evidence. My tendency is simply to disregard these claims as spurious. Rabbi Joe Blair Question: I have been self employed for over 6 years and have been trying to find full-time work that would provide me a consistent cash flow. I am a Conservative Jew born to Orthodox parents. I mention all of this background because I have a company who is about to make me a job offer; however, they are in the business of manufacturing crab cakes. Would it be wrong for me to work for a company that produces non-kosher products even though I try to maintain a kosher life style for myself? I truly could use the job assuming an offer is made to me, but I am worried that this would be viewed as unethical or immoral. Can someone let me know what Judaic Law says about such actions?
[Administrator's note: some related questions on JVO can be found at:
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=944
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=847
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=444
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=850]
The answer in short is ‘take the job’.
Providing for yourself and your family is a fairly high priority and an obligation ethically and in Jewish law.
You can see the answers to question number 850 (http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=850) on Jewish values online about serving as a personal chef in a non-kosher facility; there the responses are that it is permissible, so long as the Jewish person is not eating the treif (non-kosher) items. I see that as the same situation you are in.
More, there is sanction for dealing with things in business that are otherwise proibited in Jewish law. Looking at Mishnah Avodah Zarah we find that in 1:8 Rabbi Eliezer allows one to make adornments for an idol for a wage. That would seem to be an even more direct violation of Jewish law, values, and ethics than working for a company that produced non-Kosher foodstuff. Bottom line: take the job, and good luck to you. Question: I am starting a business as a personal chef. Would there be any halachic issues if I were to cook non-kosher food for a gentile client in the client's own kitchen?
I would see no issues with you serving as the cook or chef for this person in itself.
We are taught in the Mishnah, and it is expanded upon in the Talmud, that one may be in the busiess of making and selling idols to pagans. 'Af al pi' (a fortiori, all the more so), I would think, preparing food for others - specifically for a non-Jew, should present no inherent prohibition. .
The obvious issue for you to note would have to do with your own observance of Jewish law (halachah), such as not working on Shabbat, or preparing/heating food.to be used on Shabbat.
You may need to be concerned with Issues around wine (kosher - entirely made/handled by Jews, as opposed to mevushal or boiled wine vs other forms, may be a concern for reasons of Kashrut - dietary laws - in halachah/Jewish law).
If you observe a halachic form of kashrut, then you probably can't consume anything you are preparing, not even to taste it for seasoning. Tasting things as you prepare them is a problem in any case, and if you are preparing completely treif (unfit or forbiddden by kosher standards) items - surely no tasting while you make dishes such as shrimp diavola, ham rolls, chicken cordon bleu, etc.
Even if you yourself are observing a non-halachic form of Kashrut (following a 'kosher style' practice), you would still have some of the problems noted here.
If you can avoid crossing the lines you have established for your own observance, there is no reason you can't take the position.
Hatzlachah (success) in your new endeavor!
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: Is a scheduled Hatafat Dam Brit to be postponed if the convert's mother is expected to die within the week?
[Administrator's note: a somewhat similar question was posed in http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=650]
First, assuming that this is an actual situation you face, allow me to offer my concern for you at this time. The time of your conversion should be one of happiness, and offer you a sense of joy and satisfaction at 'coming home'. On the other hand, facing the imminent death of your mother is hard enough; to face it at what should be a time of great joy must be a source of very mixed emotions, and be even more difficult for you.
To answer, I would offer you two thoughts. First, have you spoken to the rabbi with whom you are working towards your converison? Their answer should be the best advice for you.
Not to undercut what that rabbi might say, in general, with no other information to go on, I would think there is no reason not to proceed with the Hatafat dam brit. If you had completed your conversion a month ago and your mother's death occurred, it would be no different, as far as I can see. If you have been delaying the Hatafat dam brit out of respect for your mother, perhaps you want to wait until after the funeral and mourning period, but that does not seem to be the situation from what you have said.
I am sorry I can't be more specific - without more information I can't say anything else, and this is really a question that should be posed to your own rabbi.
Sha'ah tovah on your Hatafat dam brit and the related Mikvah and Beit Din to follow; my sympathies on the imminent loss of your mother. May you be strengthened and granted courage to handle all that is ahead of you.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: I got married in Jan, and lost a baby at the beginning of March. My husband left me mid-March. He owes me money; he is in a bad financial way, and I have basically supported him.
I paid for the wedding and basically paid for everything, even the rings. He's now refusing to give me a 'get' (a Jewish bill of divorce) [Administrators note: Making this person an Agunah - search for other questions on JVO using this term]. I'm am trying to get the rabbis to mediate, but he's turned vicious on me. I landed up in hospital with severe depression, and he basically said I was looking for attention. He's stalling the civil proceeding, but that's easy, its just this 'get' that I'm worried about. What can I do?
I got married in an Orthodox setting, but an issue is that I, not my husband, purchased the ring [used in the wedding]. Can I annul the marriage because it was not 'kosher' since he did not provide the ring for the ceremony? How can I proceed under Jewish law and according to Jewish values?
[Administrators note: Other questions on our website also touch on this subject. Please search for the term 'agunah' to find them.]
First, allow me to express my sincere condolences on the loss you suffered in early March. Baruch dayan haemet - may you be comforted by the One who comforts.
It sounds as if everything came upon you all at once. I don't know all the circumstances and can't comment on the situation, but I can only imagine that this sequence of events would have been horrible. To be in the situation of an 'agunah' (a chained woman) on top of all this must be very upsetting and frustrating.
My colleagues will ably respond to the Halachic issues you raise concerning ownership of the ring. I don't think that is a very strong argument, but I am not in a position to render any sort of Halachic/legal advice. That also is the purview of the Beit Din that would be constituted for a Get process - and they will determine how to interpret the specific facts of the case.
Speaking as a Reform rabbi, I can tell you that there are inconsistent responses that you will receive from within the Reform rabbinate. Some in the Reform world would accept your civil divorce and not require a get (Jewish divorce decree) - a position that was affirmed in 1980 [see American Reform Responsa 162, (Vol. XC, 1980, pp. 84-86), http://ccarnet.org/responsa/arr-511-514/.].
Others, myself included, given what you say, would urge you to seek a get to assure that there would be no concern or question about your ability to remarry within the Orthodox or Conservative communities where you live, or the status of any future children you have [as in the 1994 CCAR Responsa 5754.6, http://ccarnet.org/responsa/tfn-no-5754-6-209-215/].
I also note that the Reform movement has not established a formal Get - there is a Seder Peridah (Document of Separation) that is available, but it is specifically not intended or accepted as a Get (see New American Reform Responsa 233, July 1988, http://ccarnet.org/responsa/narr-369-374/]. There isno Reform Get or Get process in place - something I hope the Reform movement will rectify at some point, because it is needed so long as the status of Agunah is a possibility in the Jewish world
The end result is that I agree with your feeling that you need a Get.
However, I would point out to you that you will not require it until (unless) you are planning to remarry and/or have a child. So long as you do neither of those things, there is no immediate call for the Get. Practically, you can wait for a time. Your ex-husband may eventually tire of being prodded and agree to 'get rid' of the annoyance, particularly if he finds someone else and seeks to marry, and your request for a Get keeps popping up and annoying her.
I am sorry that I have no easy answer for you. I hope that your ex-husband recognizes and does the right thing, and that this works out satisfactorily all around. I hope also that you find the right doctors, counselors, rabbis, and other supports you need, and that you find your way to a fulfilled life with happiness and joy.
Shalom.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: Are we judged by G-d for our thoughts and fantasies?
If you mean, do Jews believe that we are judged by G-d for thoughts, fantasies, imagination, desires, urges, or wishes upon which we do not act (and which we do not seek), the answer is a simple and emphatic NO.
This is a significant difference between Judaism and much of Christianity, to my understanding. In Christian thought there seems to be an approach that one is not permitted to have such thoughts or desires, and that to do so is sinful. I recall some time back, when he was a Presidential candidate, Jimmy Carter admitted woefully to the 'sin' of lust in his heart - something that made little sense from a Jewish perspective.
Judaism has the twin concepts of the Yetzer HaRa (the inclination towards "evil") and the Yetzer HaTov (the inclination towards "good"). There is a teaching in Judaism that both are required.
The Yetzer HaTov is what leads us to be compassionate, caring, concerned with others, kind, and to seek fairness and justice. The Yetzer HaRa is the source of desires, of seeking to acquire and own, sexual urges, urges towards power, success, and wealth, and so on.
These desires, urges, or inclinations are not evil in and of themselves; it is what we do and how we act in response that determines what their effect will be. If a person did not have a Yetzer HaRa, they would never be motivated to accomplish anything, to succeed at anything, to build anything, to improve anything, to have a family, or to buy a home. It is, after all, self-interest of some sort, the desire to fulfill these inclinations and urges, that drives people to find new and better ways to do things, to develop products that others will want, to seek leadership positions, and to try to better themselves and their situation.
If we lived in a world of complete 'saints' - people who had only the Yetzer HaTov, it would be a very primitive and limited world indeed. People might all be good, but there would be little that would tempt them to do anything at all, and no reason that they would seek to change or better things or themselves.We might all still be living in caves, using clubs as our only tool.
At the same time, if one did not have a Yetzer HaTov, there would be no bounds or limits on what was acceptable to do to 'win', and that person would be completely amoral (having no sense of morality and no concern with anyone else, only with satisfying their own desires).
Our requirement and task as human beings is to find the proper balance between these two urges or inclinations so we can act in a godly fashion, yet still be a productive member of our society and community. The ability to choose how to respond to our urges and inclinations and desires is what we often call 'free will'.
In short, you need both a Yetzer HaRa and a Yetzer HaTov to function. Since these are components of a normal human being, as G-d created us, there can be nothing wrong with having them, or with the results of having either one - including fantasies and thoughts, and we will not be judged for what we feel inclined or urged towards, only what we actually act upon and do.
Rabbi Joe Blair Question: I am on the personnel committee of a small synagogue. We recently heard that our rabbi may have taken financial advantage of someone he met through employment at another synagogue. We feel he has violated his covenant with us by financially obligating our synagogue in a contract that we cannot afford. He refuses to acknowledge his part in this unfortunate situation. Can you point us towards ways that we can confront him that will be within the bounds of Jewish tradition/law? On many levels he is a good man, but this behavior has really upset our committee and the few other congregants who are aware of the situation. We are afraid that this will cause a rift in our congregation if not handled in a just manner.
This is a difficult matter for me to offer any advice or response. First off, I don't really know the details of the situation, nor am I fully familiar with all the facts. Anything I say would be uninformed and liable to error. JVO is really not the appropriate forum for such an inquiry.
You should know that Jewish law is far more stringent on proofs than common law: it generally requires that there be two disinterested witnesses who see the action as it is being done for any penalty to be imposed - one is not enough. It also requires that the witnesses know the intent of the person, warn that person before the action is taken, and that the person understand the warning and the consequences, and still proceed in full view of the witnesses. I can't imagine that this standard would be met from the little you tell me; Jewish law and tradition would require you in that case to be silent and take no action.
Looking at what you say in regard to the prior behavior, you are telling me that you have heard something now - AFTER you hired the rabbi, that occurred before you hired him. I would think that it is too late to consider that now: either it should have been discovered and known in the interview process (and if you hired the rabbi knowing it, you can't raise it now), or it is water over the bridge.
More: this is not fact, but what you are 'hearing'. Apparently you can't personally swear to it, it was not established by a court (Jewish or other), it is not public knowledge, and you were not a witness to it, so it is not an established fact, and to act on it in any way or speak of it is inappropriate.
You tell me that you (and perhaps some others on your committee) feel that a contract was entered into by the rabbi without authority; again, without much more information it is impossible to determine what really happened. How did the contract come into existence? What was the circumstance? Could the rabbi have been given signals that this was appropriate and he should proceed? If no, was the rabbi ever specifically told that his role did not provide for him to enter into contracts? Did anyone at any time ever tell him that he would be subject to penalties if he did? Did anyone warn him and then see that he entered into the contract despite the warning and knowledge that he was not permitted to do so? There are too many questions to be able to give you a meaningful answer.
I think that this situation is not so clear cut as you may have thought. It is quite possible that the rabbi showed poor judgement, or even overstepped his bounds, but Jewish law does not impose penalties for that type of behavior.
Apparently you, or someone, has brought this to the rabbi, and he has not agreed that he was in error. It is possible that he is correct, and that what you think you know is not the whole story, just as much as it is possible that your view is correct and he is in the wrong.
If your goal is to mend fences and continue to work with this rabbi, then what is required would seem to be a closer working relationship, with explanation, discussion, and an open give and take leading to agreement on what the rabbi's role and authority are in the congregation: it is not a group of people sitting as judges over the rabbi and imposing penalties for what they don't like. The relationship is, after all, supposed to be a Brit Kadosh - a holy covenant, and not an employment contract for hourly wages and tasks by the worker dictated by the employer.
If the goal is to punish the rabbi, and/or eventually to assure that he leaves, this will become an ugly, divisive, and destructive situation in the congregation, and will resound to the congregation's reputation for many years to come.
If you wish to pursue this in a formal manner, it is likely that you need to do so by going through the CCAR and the mechanisms established by the URJ. If that is unsatisfactory, you can ignore Jewish law and take the matter to the secular courts, but know in advance that because this is a messy process, and one that airs all the dirty laundry, neither party is likely to be happy with the outcome, nor to feel fully satisfied with it, and it is almost certain to create ill will and hard feelings among congregants.
Again, there is no answer possible because there is not enough information to formulate one. I hope that you and the committee members can deal with this in the most positive and mentschlich fashion and bring closure and peace to all.
Rabbi Joe Blair Question: Hi. I met this girl, she is amazing to me, she feels like the one. I've got a problem: I'm a kohain (Kohen), and her mother converted. While her mother was far into the conversion process, this girl was born. Is she considered Jewish, or a convert? Please send me this answer soon. I would not go against my religion, but I feel that Hashem tests us in such hard ways and so many times.
For most who are in the Reform movement, the restrictions on those who are Kohanim (singular, a kohain = priest, high priest - the descendants of Aaron), are thought to be irrelevant, and neither the restrictions nor the special status accorded them are followed.
With the complete destruction of the Temple for the second time in the year 70 CE, the focus of Judaism and Jewish practice was transferred from the Temple (a cultic site where offerings for animal sacrifices were the major form of practice, and where the animals were brought, and the rituals were overseen and performed by the kohanim), to a religion that functioned in non-specific locales, using prayer as that which was 'sacrificed', with the primary focus on the home and the observances of the individual/family. This was possible because it had been decreed that Israel shall be 'a nation of priests' - so no need for the kohanim to serve in this ritual fashion absent the ritual in the Temple. More, it was always known that G-d did not need the sacrifices of animals (specifically unlike some religions where one had to feed the gods); this was what people needed to do to express their love and fear of G-d.
Those who are continuing to follow the restrictions on the kohanim do so in the expectation/hope that the Temple will be restored, and that ritual worship through animal sacrifice will again become the norm. This position is roundly rejected by the bulk of those in the Reform movement, who tend to feel that Judaism and Jews have evolved beyond the need for this rather primitive seeming form of worship.
Given that the restriction you mention on marriage of a kohain to a convert (as well as the other restrictions) is related to keeping a kohain 'fit' to serve in the Temple to perform sacrifices, most in the Reform group would not be concerned if you ignored this issue. It is unlikely that the Temple will be restored anytime in your lifetime, if ever, or that Jews will return to animal sacrifice as the form of worship of G-d.
As for her status: here, I would have to say that from what you tell me I cannot determine if this woman was born Jewish or is Jewish. The Reform movement has multiple Responsa (answers to questions) that deal with the status of children of mixed marriages. I will try to summarize them.
A child born to a non-Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father is not Jewish by any definition. To be considered Jewish, that child would have to undergo a conversion.
The typical thinking is that if the mother was Jewish at the time of birth, the child can be considered Jewish. This concept of matirlineality (descent through the mother) is essentially what the Orthodox and Conservative positions follow. The Reform movement also requires that the child be raised in a Jewish home, given a Jewish education, and engage in rituals and public acts that affirm their Jewish status.
The Reform movement has also accepted patrilineality (descent through the father) as a basis for Jewish status. In this instance, a child born to a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father, where that child is raised in a Jewish home, given a Jewish education, and engages in rituals and public acts that affirm their Jewish status, is accepted as Jewish. This position is not accepted by all movements in the Jewish world - and since this seems likely to be the situation with the woman in whom you are interested, this could be problematic for you and for her down the road.
I would urge you to consult your own rabbi to discuss this situation. You may also find several other answers on the JVO website that relate to your question. I believe that a search for the keyword 'status' may yield most of them.
I wish you happiness.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: Is it a sin to move a person's casket to another plot in the same cemetery? My mother does not want to be buried between her husband and her father-in-law and, if they move my father over one spot, the problem is solved.
First, let me say that it is not a ‘sin’ – it is simply something that we avoid in order not to disturb the peace and sanctity of the final resting place, or to negatively affect the honor or to cause any humiliation or embarrassment of the dead person or their memory (some of the same reasons we so often hear people say ‘rest in peace’). Judaism does not set these reasons aside lightly, however, each of these objections can be overcome, in given and specific circumstances.
It does occur that bodies are exhumed and reburied at times – for example, if the cemetery is being closed or otherwise is no longer acceptable, or has been affected by a natural disaster that compromises the location (the gravesite is next to a river and may be washed away, for example); if the body is being moved to be reburied in Israel or in a family plot; if a body is being moved to a grave acquired by the deceased, who intended to be buried there, but was not for some reason; or if the body was mistakenly buried in the wrong site (one belonging to someone else) and the owner (not a family member) wants to use it themselves and does not wish to sell or give it to the deceased or the family of the deceased.
In your question, there is a concern with the feelings of your mother, particularly in connection with her father-in-law, but those feelings are at some level opposed to the sense of honoring your father by leaving him to rest in peace in a perfectly acceptable grave.
Looking at the Halachic arguments, the Talmud in B. Sanhedrin 47b says:
“…An objection is raised: 'If one hews a grave for his [dead] father and then goes and buries him elsewhere, he himself may never he buried therein'?18 — The reference here is to a built grave.19 Come and hear! 'A fresh grave20 may be used. But if an abortion had been laid therein, it is forbidden for use'?21 — Here too, the reference is to a built grave.
Come and hear! 'Thus we see22 that there are three kinds of graves:23 A grave that has been found;24 a known grave;25 and one which injures the public.26 A grave that has been found may be cleared;27 when cleared, the place thereof is [levitically] clean and permitted for use.28 A known grave may not be cleared; if it has been, the spot is unclean and forbidden for use.29 A grave which injures the public may be cleared; if it has been, the place thereof is clean but may not be used'?30 — Here too, the reference is to a built grave. But may a grave that was found be evacuated? Perhaps a meth-mizwah was buried therein; and a meth-mezwah takes possession of his place of burial!31 A meth-mizwah is quite different, since its existence is generally known.32 “
Continuing, B. Sanhedrin 48a says:
“…Come and hear! 'A tomb12 built for a man still alive, may be used.13 If, however, one added a single row of stones for a dead person,14 no [other] use may be made thereof'?15 — This deals with a case where the corpse had actually been buried there. If so why [teach] particularly 'if one added [etc.]'; even if not, the law would have been the same! — This is only necessary [to teach that the prohibition remains] even if the body has [subsequently] been removed.16
Rafram R. Papa said In R. Hisda's name: If he recognizes that [additional row] he may remove it and the tomb becomes again permissible. Come and hear! 'If one hews a grave for his [dead] father and then goes and buries him elsewhere, he [himself] may never be buried therein'?17 — Here it is on account of his father's honour.18 That too stands to reason. For the second clause teaches: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said; Even if one hews stones19 [for a tomb] for his father, but goes and buries him elsewhere, he [himself] may never employ them for his own grave.20 Now, if you agree that it is out of respect for his father, it is correct. But if you say that it is because of designation, does any one maintain that yarn spun for weaving [a shroud is forbidden]?21 Come and hear! A fresh grave may be used. But if an abortion has been laid therein, it is forbidden for use,22 Thus, it is so only if it has actually been laid therein, but not otherwise!23 — The same law holds good even if it [the abortion] was not laid therein;24 and it [the statement, 'if it has been laid therein'] is [only] intended to exclude the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who maintains: Abortions take no possession of their graves.25 He therefore teaches us [otherwise].26 ….” What we see it that the Talmudic argument would dictate that while you might be able to move your father’s remains, your mother (or any other relative of your father) would not be permitted to be placed in the grave from which he was moved - so moving your father to the grave next to where he was buried (and closer to his father), would not avail at all, according to Halachah and tradition.
Of course, all of this is following the approach of tradition and Jewish law: from a Reform perspective, there are a number of Responsa that apply.
First, http://ccarnet.org/responsa/carr-172-173/, which determined that disinterment and reburial to move a body to a family plot was allowed, determined by the appellate division of the supreme court of New York, 1900.
Secondly, in 1922, a similar issue arose and was answered in the affirmative in Responsum http://ccarnet.org/responsa/arr-353-355/.
It would seem that disinterment (exhumation) and reburial are permissible within the Reform context, at least in some instances. However, I do not find any materials that approve of it for the reason that the surviving spouse does not wish to be buried next to another relative.
The solution you propose seems simple, but I can’t find support for it in text or in prior decisions, and frankly, it just ‘feels’ wrong. Consequently, I would suggest that your mother be counseled and helped to reconcile herself to the way things now are, rather than follow the course that you ask about.
If she is adamant and insists, then you will have to determine whether the cemetery operating organization would be willing to consider the request. If not, and your mother persists in her request, you would need to think about acquiring graves at another place, and pursuing reburial of your father elsewhere, and burial of your mother at that location. This makes me very uncomfortable, as it has the effect of removing your father from his family plot – precisely the opposite of one of the considerations that permits exceptions to disinter and rebury in Jewish practice.
I sincerely hope that you can persuade your mother to reconsider her request: that would be the easiest and best outcome.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: If a newborn or child is adopted by Jewish parents and the child is raised a Jew, is the person Jewish since there is no way of knowing if the child came from a Jewish woman?
Or, as in my case, the birth mother was not Jewish at time of the birth but did later convert once she married the Jewish birth father?
Your question is unanswerable without making some assumptions - so here we go.
Adoption is not a conversion process. The child's religious status does not change with the legal paperwork. A Jewish child adopted by a Jewish family is still Jewish. A non-Jewish child adopted by a Jewish family is still not Jewish. The intervening adoption is not a concern here. Assuming it was done correctly for legal purposes, it is not at issue. The status of the adoptive parents is not a factor to answer the underlying question. This is really a question of status - Jewish or not.
First possibility: The child was born of a Jewish mother, and was adopted by a Jewish family. In that instance, the child would be Jewish at birth, and still Jewish upon adoption.
However, that birth mother must be Jewish AT THE TIME OF the birth; otherwise, she is not Jewish, and therefore the child born is not Jewish, absent a conversion.The child takes the status of the mother at the moment of birth. A later status change of the mother does NOT retroactively affect the child born earlier, and a conversion of the child would be required for that child to be Jewish.
Second possibility: The child was born of a non-Jewish mother, with a non-Jewish father (i.e., is absolutely not Jewish at all), and was adopted by a Jewish family. Clearly here, too, for the child to be considered Jewish, there must be a conversion.
Third possibility: The child was born of a non-Jewish mother, with a Jewish father (i.e., that child is not Jewish according to Halachah, but could conditionally be considered Jewish in the Reform context, IF and ONLY IF the child is: given a Jewish education, raised exclusively as a Jew, affirms Jewish status by publicly (and privately) engaging exclusively in Jewish rituals and practices (including, as appropriate, Brit Milah/Brit Bat & Naming, B'nai Mitzvah, Confirmation, Jewish wedding, observing holidays and rituals, etc.).
In the first case, the child is Jewish by Halachah and tradition.
However, the way you pose the question, apparently the status of the mother is unknown or questionable. As a way to resolve any questions that exist in that situation, I would advise that the child be taken to the Mikveh in the presence of a Beit Din (a rabbinic court of three) for immersion.
In that situation, if the birth mother was Jewish, this effects no change in status, except to settle any doubt (Safek), and to provide a record for future use if the question arises. If the birth mother was not Jewish, it would serve as a conversion ritual, and also settle the status of the child for the future.
In the second case, this child is not Jewish by any definition. The child would require the full conversion process: Brit Milah if a boy, and immersion in the Mikveh before a Beit Din to effect a conversion. This would be what I would recommend to the adoptive parents, in any case.
The third case is a little more difficult to resolve because the answer differs between and within Jewish movements. For the Orthodox and Conservative responses, see what my colleagues have written.
Unfortunately, it is true that there is not complete agreement among all within the Reform movement as to what to do in this situation, so I am giving you my own answer: it fits within the ambit of the Reform movement's view, but not all Reform rabbis (or Reconstructionist or Renewal or other groups' rabbis, for that matter) would follow the approach I suggest to you in my response. This is a somewhat gray area. I tend to lean towards honoring, and therefore following Halachah and tradition as much as possible.
My approach is as follows (with my parenthetical comments inserted): the Reform movement has stated in Responsa that a child of a Jewish parent -either of the biological parents, that is raised in a Jewish (Jewish only - not a two-faith family) home, given a Jewish education (and no other religious instruction), (participates in the Jewish community), and that participates and engages in the public (and private) rituals, practices, and activities that affirm their Jewish status can be considered Jewish.
In this hypothetical situation you present, a child born of a non-Jewish biological mother and a Jewish biological father, adopted by a Jewish couple, and raised as a Jew, including full participation in Jewish rituals and practices, engaging in a formal Jewish education, and affirming their Jewish connection and affiliation by public acts, COULD - and probably would - be considered Jewish in the Reform (and perhaps other progressive groups in the Jewish world) movement, but WOULD NOT be so considered by Conservative or Orthodox groups, absent a formal conversion.
Consequently, I would advise this person to undertake a process of study and working with a rabbi to effect a resolution to any doubt that exists. By following a course of study, undergoing Brit Milah (ritual circumcision) or Hatafat Dam Brit (drawing a bead of blood if circumcised) for a male, appearing before a Beit Din, and immersing in a Mikvah, it would remove the possibility of any Safek, and for those groups in the Jewish world that do not accept patrilineal descent (taking Jewish status from the father), this would have the effect of a conversion ritual.
Not to paint too rosy a picture (it coulnd't be that easy!): conversions by Reform, Reconstructionist, Renewal, and even Conservative rabbis are not necessarily accepted by the Orthodox (or as some would term them, the ultra-Orthodox, or Haredi) rabbinate. Depending on the purpose of the conversion, I would urge you to ask questions about the acceptance of a Teudah (certificate) from the particular rabbi and the Beit Din, for the use you wish to make of it.
If you wish to be accepted in the very Orthodox world, for example, a conversion with a Reform rabbi is not likely to be good enough. This is not about Halachah (although the arguments are often phrased in those terms); it is about politics and power and defining 'our group' and being "right" - and there is plenty of blame to go around on this issue for all.
I urge you to be fully informed and to work towards fulfilling what is necessary for your particular situation. Ask a lot of questions. There is no 'one size fits all' solution possible here.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: What and where is the obligation to honor a parent's last wishes found? Must they be followed?
My learned colleagues have ably laid out the Halachic perspective in this matter.
The Reform movement has stated in past that it is not bound by Halachah, but Halachah and tradition are factors that are to be considered and followed where possible. Contrary to many assertions by those outside the Reform movement (and some within it as well), Reform Judaism does not stand for the position that 'anything goes.'
For example, if a parent requests that a child not place them in a specific assisted living facility when there are several similar choices, that is certainly worthy of being considered and followed. Similarly, if a parent requests that a child not undertake 'heroic' measures to keep them alive at the end of life, that too seems worthy of consideration and should be followed.
At the same time, there would seem to be limitations on what a parent may appropriately request of their child, and those limits apply to final requests as well. For example, if a parent requests a child to murder them to end their suffering (along the lines of 'just bring a gun and shoot me!'), that is not appropriate and should not be followed.
The extremes at either end of this continuum seem clear; the difficulties arise most often in the middle, gray areas.
For example, in the medical arena, at the end of life if a parent has stated at some point clearly that they do not wish a feeding tube to be inserted if they are hospitalized, that is less clear than it might seem. If the feeding tube is being used for a two week period following stomach surgery, and the prognosis is that the parent will fully recover and return to an independent and active life, to withhold nutrition for that period (and risk killing the parent) by complying with the request makes little sense. On the other hand, if a parent has said that they do not wish to live in a long-term vegetative state, and they are comatose with no hope or expectation of recovery following a traumatic physical injury which has rendered them incapable of an independent or active life, to violate the expressed wishes of the parent and insert a feeding tube seems to be clearly inappropriate.
It is the middle ground where the questions arise. When the situation is murky, the outcome is not known, or the results are unclear, there is much more need to weigh the matter. If the parent who has suffered a massive injury in a car wreck has only a fifty-fifty chance of survival and recovery, and the degree of recovery is questionable, the question becomes much more difficult.
The difficulties come into play in the application of judgement and the assessment of the situation, and the balancing of the interests and consequences.
In this particular question, the issue raised specifically is in regard to final wishes, or last requests.
In this light, there can be no fixed answer, because the determination will depend on specific circumstances. When a parent makes a death-bed request that a child undertake some action on their behalf, the child will need to weigh the request. If a parent asks that the child give the parent's ring to a particular grandchild, or allow the grandchild to attend a particular school, that may be appropriate to follow. If a parent asks that a child disown a grandchild (that child's child), or convert and practice a particular religion or join a sect that the child has rejected, that would seem an inappropriate request.
If a parent asks a child to deal with their remains in a way that is abhorrent to the child or violates the child's moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, it would seem to me that it is not a reasonable request to make, and the child should not be obliged to comply; otherwise, as a way of honoring the parent, the child should do their best to do as requested.
Question: I am a Catholic. I love the "whoever saves a life saves the world" passage. My daughter is a health care professional and saves many lives. Is it disrespectful for me to use [a quote of] that passage on a gift to her?
First, I see no limitation on you to use a quote such as this one on a gift. It is thoughtful of you to be concerned about any possible disrespect, but I don’t see that as a problem in this instance.
I have railed about those who use Jewish rites and ceremonies for their own purposes, and particularly those who usurp them with the purpose of deceiving the gullible into believing that they are engaged in legitimate Jewish worship when that is not at all true (so-called ‘Jews for Jesus’ and other Messianic organizations).
However, what they do is nothing like what you are doing. You are not trying to deceive anyone with your use of this quote, you are not engaging in a non-Jewish ritual with it, and you are not intending to undermine the teachings of Judaism by your use of it. I see no problem with your desire to place it on a gift as a quote.
Frankly, I am delighted that you would wish to use this text in this fashion. It is in keeping with the idea that Judaism is intended to share whatever wisdom we have been granted with the world (and I would add, to learn from others what wisdom they have to share).
I hope your daughter appreciates the gift (and the quote) as much as you do.
Thank you for writing.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: Is “freedom of speech” a Torah/Jewish value as well? Or does Judaism believe that there should be a limit on what we say?
As in so many things in Judaism, the answer to this question is ‘yes and no, it depends.’ :-)
Judaism certainly values the ability to speak one’s mind, and particularly, to ‘tell truth to power’ – as is often seen in the case of the prophets speaking to kings.
Though there is not a specific statement regarding ‘freedom of speech’, it is arguable that the Torah commands us to speak out even to our harm; based on Deut. 16:20 requiring us to pursue justice/righteousness, and to judge fairly and not to act to cause injury nor to stand idly by when another is in danger in Lev. 19:15-16, as a barebones framework. As a general principle in the Tanakh (Jewish bible), no one was happy to be singled out to be a prophet because it meant that they would be delivering G-d’s message to those who did not want to hear it, and would be subject to discomfort, distress, and even death as a result.
For one clear example, note in this regard the biblical account in 2 Samuel 12, in which the prophet Nathan rebukes and chastises King David for his actions in regard to Bathsheba (through a sort of parable/story followed by an accusation). Nathan is certainly free to speak, and to tell the truth, and this is in accord with what G-d would wish. At the same time, note the circumstances in this story. This is not a public declaration decrying David to others - Nathan is saying this directly to David, perhaps in private.
That fits in with another, equally important value in Judaism concerning the power of words and the need to be careful in speech. This principle is often referred to in short as the topic of ‘lashon hara’ (the evil tongue, or evil speech). There is a great deal of discussion of this idea in Jewish texts, including in the Talmud (e.g., BT Baba Metzia 58b ff.). It is also tied to the concepts concerning ‘rechilut’ (talebearing). The truth of a statement is not a justification by itself in Judaism (though it is a complete defense in common/secular law, where we see the issues regarding speech dealt with in the areas of slander and libel).
The principle in Jewish law and thought is that speech must be governed and controlled. One may not say anything they wish; it must be said in the correct context, to the appropriate person(s), and mindfully, so as not to inflict injury or harm without necessity.
So the answer to your question is that although one may speak up, and may even be obliged to do so, this is not freedom of speech as understood in the common view of American society and the American legal system. Judaism has a more nuanced and balanced position on when one is permitted/obliged to speak or remain silent, and in what circumstances.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: I am a soon to be converted Jew by Choice. The problem is, practicing Judaism is really causing problems in my marriage with my non-practicing Jewish husband. I realized how important religion was to me when we had our first child. In the last two years, our marriage has been fraught with arguments because he doesn't want to raise our children Jewish. He did participate in a baby naming, doesn't sulk everytime I light Shabbat candles as he once did and has agreed to a Jewish preschool, but I still feel like it's an uphill battle to raise our kids Jewish. He had trauma in his youth (abuse) that occurred at his shul for which he will not seek counseling. Am I right to keep pushing like this? I certainly want to be sensitive to my husband but feel like I'm repressing my own identity and the Jewish identity of our children.
My learned colleagues have offered you much good advice, and have set forth some of the Halachic (Jewish law), practical, and emotional issues, so I will not plow that ground again. :-)
Given what you say about the circumstances, it seems likely that you are already working with a Reform rabbi to study for your conversion, so I will also not say much about the approach of the Reform movement to conversion (aside from which, there is much already written and appearing here on the Jewish Values Online website on that topic – you can find it by doing a keyword search on the website).
So, first and foremost, it is clear to me that this is something you should definitely be discussing with your rabbi, the rabbi with whom you are studying for conversion. Depending on the movement within Judaism of the rabbi, your conversion may be delayed or in jeopardy if this cannot be resolved. More immediately, if this is actually going to jeopardize your marriage, you need to consider proceeding carefully in that light.
Second, I would ask; is your husband actually unwilling to raise the children as Jews, or is it it that he is unwilling to ‘marginalize’ himself in the family by agreeing that his family will be observant (to some degree) while he won’t be? In other words, could this be based on a concern that he is going to be separated in some way from his wife and children by religion?
It seems to me that you would need to have some conversations with him to find out. These conversations may be quite difficult – this is not necessarily something that will go smoothly and easily, and it is possible that you should seek to have them with some assistance. Involving a counselor may be a good way to approach a subject that already seems very fraught for you both.
One more point on the relationship; though this is perhaps cheap armchair psychologizing…. It seems to me that your husband married someone who was not Jewish. Perhaps that was intentional and even important to him at some level (think of some of the Jewish secular literature, perhaps including Philip Roth, in this regard). If so, your choice to convert, and now to convert and raise your children as Jewish, would in that case be a problem for him. You might want to think about this, and try to find a way to ask him to consider if this is playing any role in the matter.
The end result is unclear, but if you approach this with sensitivity and a sense of compassion and openness to his feelings, inviting him to accompany you as much as he wishes and is able, on a journey you are on, and which you would like to share with him, he is much more likely to take steps towards where you wish to be – though there is no guarantee (and small likelihood) that he will ever stand in the exact same place you do – most marriages and unions require both parties each to compromise on some things, to concede others, and to stand firm on a very few. It is choosing those issues which fall into each grouping that is in the art of marriage. :-)
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: I have heard that gossip is considered the same type of sin as murder in the Jewish religion. Could you clarify the reasons for this?
The concept you are asking about is called ‘lashon hara’ [covering the areas of gossip, slander, and tale-bearing]. Literally It translates as the evil tongue, or more colloquially, evil speech. There are numerous and extensive discussions of this topic. One of the foremost Jewish authors in this area is called the Chofetz Chaim (Desirer or Seeker of Life) after the title of his book on this topic, taken from Psalm 34:12-15. The actual name of the author was Rabbi Israel Meir Kagan. Because gossip and slander are understood to be irreparable (often demonstrated by a story: a woman who gossips is told by her rabbi to take a feather pillow to the top of a high hill on a windy day, and cut it open. The wind takes all the feathers and scatters them everywhere. The rabbi then tells the woman to gather the feathers, to which she says it is impossible, and the rabbi tells her that this same impossibility also applies to words that are sent out in the world), they are something for which it is very difficult to achieve Teshuvah (repentance and repair). The reputation and feelings of the person about whom one has gossiped are injured/damaged, and they cannot be made whole again.
The rabbis also teach that lashon hara destroys three persons: the one who says it, the one who hears it, and the one about whom it is said. In a particular form of lashon hara, the rabbis felt it was even more severe. This is the basis for your question. This was the instance in which the gossip may be true, but the spreading of it completely destroys the person. They term this as ‘halvanat panim’, the whitening of the face. In a slightly hyperbolic language, they say that this is tantamount to murder, as one removes the blood from the person (their face is drained of color and blood), and destroys them. A discussion of this phenomenon is explained (in BT Seder Kedoshim Tractate Arachin folio 5b) starting with the teachings of the school of Rabbi Ishmael. In this way, gossip is equated to murder (shedding of blood).
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: Is it okay for an unmarried 22 year old couple to sleep together in the same bed, in the same room as the woman's 11 year old brother?
The very fact that you are even submitting this question means that at some level you already know the answer. No, it is wrong, on multiple levels. First, an unmarried couple sleeping together in a room in which there is also an eleven year old boy is wrong. Even if you do not engage in any sexual behavior, this is simply inappropriate. At best, it sets a terrible example for this child. What positive lessons do you think you will be teaching him?
If you also are thinking that you would engage in intercourse, or even sexual behavior or any kind (including kissing), in front of him, it becomes not just inappropriate, but unacceptable in every way.
The fact that this is the 22 year old woman’s 11 year old brother just makes this entirely wrong – nor would it be better if it were the 22 year old man’s brother. This child is old enough to see what is going on, and may be very negatively affected long term by being exposed to sexual acts.
As for the issue of the 22 year old unmarried couple sleeping together in the same bed, the answers also seem clear. You are both beyond the age of consent, so there is no legal barrier in civil law. Jewish law would frown on it on grounds of tzniut (modesty).
In regard to engaging in sexual behavior with each other, under the rubric of sex being something that is to be considered holy/sacred, and to retain that status should be confined to the bounds of marriage (or between committed partners), that is a decision that each of you and both of you together will have to make.
Give your question, however, it seems to me that you are thinking that having the younger brother in the room would lend cover and permit you to engage in behaviors that you would not otherwise undertake for fear of discovery. If that is the case, you already know that it is not something you should be doing.
It is possible that I did not understand your question correctly: if that is the case, please resubmit it with clarification, and I will try again.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: I am Jewish and marrying a Catholic woman who respects my religion and who requested we be married by a rabbi. I will remain Jewish, and my wife will remain Catholic. My parents are both deceased, buried in a Jewish cemetery. They purchased 2 plots many years ago planning for me and my future wife to be buried next to them (my parents). Will it be a problem to have my Catholic wife buried next to me and alongside my parents in the Jewish cemetery?
First, let me wish you happiness in your forthcoming marriage. Whether your non-Jewish spouse can be buried in the Jewish cemetery with you is a question on two counts.
First, practically. It all depends on the rules of the cemetery and the organization that operates that cemetery. If the cemetery rules are that only Jewish persons can be buried within the bounds of the cemetery, then that is binding on those holding deeds to plots within the cemetery. The plots were purchased subject to that restriction, and it was agreed that the restrictions would be followed.
This is often the case for cemeteries associated with traditional, or observant, communities, and most often that would include any community that was (and probably any that still is) identified as Orthodox or Conservative. Some Reform communities established their cemeteries with rules that permit burial of non-Jewish spouses within the cemetery bounds. Other places, cemeteries were established as communal institutions, not associated with a particular denomination, and there it would simply depend on the rules that were adopted. Some cemeteries have areas that are set aside specifically for burial of Jewish and non-Jewish spouses, though these are not in the bounds of the strictly Jewish burial areas.
In short, as a practical matter, you will have to contact the cemetery and see what their rules and policies are to know if this will be permissible.
Second, as a matter of Halachah (Jewish law). This is more of a hot button issue because it depends on the application of Jewish tradition and law. Some will argue that it is permissible (as the Reform movement), while others will strongly counter that view (Orthodox and Haredi movements). For those that object, burial of a non-Jew in a Jewish cemetery may be seen as taking a consecrated place (the marked and consecrated burial plot in a Jewish cemetery) and using it for an unconsecrated purpose (burial of a person whose status is not such that this is the proper use of the plot).
I am responding here as a representative of the Reform movement. As such, the position that I would present to you is expressed in two CCAR Responsa, written over many years, and elaborated by Solomon B. Freehof, K. Kohler, Jacob Z. Lauderbach, G. Deutsch, Jacob Mann, and Julius Rappoport, and last updated in 1980. The links to the text of these two documents are http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/respdisp.pl?file=98&year=arr and http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/respdisp.pl?file=99&year=arr.
The bottom line is that based on the idea that the entirety of the cemetery is not consecrated ground, though each individual grave is (upon use), the Reform movement has held that there is no obstacle to a non-Jew being buried in a Jewish cemetery and next to a spouse or relative, though there is a ruling that the monument must not contain any non-Jewish symbols, and the rites at burial must be neutral or Jewish.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: Why do Sephardic jews use words that end with "Tav" (like Shabbat) while Ashkenazi jews pronounce it with "Samech" (like Shabbas)? and what was the original pronouciation to say it "t" or "s"?
Your question (or one very like it) has been submitted to Jewish Values Online previously. You will find that question, and the associated answer at this link:
This issue is all about pronunciation, with no difference in meaning. Think dialects, such as hearing people from New York, Boston, Iowa, Georgia, and Texas (or Great Britian, South Africa, Canada, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) - all see the same word in print, but it comes out sounding quite differently when each says it.
The actual difference is not between 'Tav' and 'Samech' but rather between 'Tav' and 'Sav' - two proninciations of the same letter, depending on the notation of a dagesh (a mark denoting emphasis, strengthening, or doubling) which appears as a 'dot' in the middle of the letter. The same is true between the letters 'Bet' and 'Vet', and 'Koff' and 'Khoff', for examples. You can also find the dagesh noted in the middle of letters such as 'Bet', 'Daled', 'Mem', 'Lamed', and 'Nun' when they are strengthened, lengthened, or doubled in pronunciation. Think of the words "Shabbat", and "Siddur" - we write the transliteration in English as if there were two 'b' or 'd' sounds because of the function of the dagesh.
There are also differences in the pronunciation of the vowels, and sometimes the accented syllable: in the example you note, it is Shah-baht for the Sephardic, and Shah-baws or Shah-bos for the Ashkenazic.
Ashkenaic Jews (Jews who trace their origins back through the area of Europe today including Germany, France, Austria, Serbo-Croatia, and parts of Russia, for example, generally under Christian control in the Middle ages) have a regional dialect that was probably influenced by the languages of the region, and the widespread use of Yiddish (a mix of middle-German language and the Hebrew alphabet and vocabulary), and tend to have a pronunciation style that makes more of a distinction between the presence and absence of the dagesh.
Sephardic Jews (Jews who trace their origins back through the areas of Spain, Africa, and Asia, primarily under Muslim control in the Middle ages), follow a dialect that was influenced by the languages of that region, and the widespread use among themselves of Ladino (a mix of Romance languages, primarily Spanish, with the Hebrew alphabet and vocabulary), and tend to have a 'softer' (perhaps more sibilant) pronunciation, and less distinction between the presence and absence of the dagesh.
(As a side note, there were other languages - Judaeo-Persion, for example, which was a mix of Persian (Farsi) language with the Hebrew language and vocabulary, and which led to a different pronunciation/dialect.)
All of these dialects are derivative - they come from an earlier version of the language. Language is a living thing, and changes with use, so asking which came first doesn't really make sense. The most likely way to hear how it was pronounced in an earlier version of the language is to listen to the cognate languages and extrapolate - so if you can hear both Arabic and Aramaic speakers pronouncing similar words, and imagine what those pronunciations along with modern Hebrew might have come from, you will be on the right track. There is probably no way to know for certain; there are no recordings of proto-Semitic, Akkadian, or Ugaritic spoken, nor of early Hebrew, so we are left to guess.
You may find more information available through studies in departments of linguistics or ancient history at some universities.
Because this is not a question of Jewish values, morals, ethics, or proper behavior, this will be the only answer offered here.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: What is Jewish law regarding eating cheese and bread and other foods that were made by non-Jews but don't have any non-kosher ingredients on the ingredient list? What if they have no hechsher?
This seems to me tol be one of the areas where there is some significant difference in the approach of the various streams of Judaism, and even within the Reform stream there is a wide variation. For probably the majority of Reform Jews, the issue of Kashrut (keeping kosher – following the dietary rules regarding what is permissible to eat, and how that food may be prepared) is not a central feature of Judaism.
Those who are aligned with what is sometimes called “Classical Reform” Judaism (the most liberal, least restrictive, and least engaged with strict observance of the literal ‘commandments’ of the Torah/Pentateuch), sometimes called ‘Ethical Judaism’ or ‘Prophetic Judaism,’ do not believe that the rules set forth in the Torah or tradition are binding. These are the Reform Jews who may be found consuming the ‘forbidden’ items and combinations, including shellfish and pork products, cheeseburgers and pepperoni pizzas. In fact, though, this is not universal: some of the individuals who identify in this fashion will be comfortable mixing meat and milk, but not eating shellfish or pork, while others will observe no dietary restrictions, and a few may observe all of these restrictions though often more out of habit than religious conviction.
In the group identified as “Modern Reform” Judaism (which is admittedly a judgmental appellation identifying those who are generally more adherent to custom and traditional practices), there is a often a stronger sense of connection to the practice of Kashrut, so that there are some individuals in this grouping who observe no dietary limitations (particularly if their families before them fell into the Classical Reform grouping), but more often you will find those who avoid pork and/or shellfish, and those who also do not mix dairy and meat in this grouping, and there are also a few who maintain the full regimen of observance of the rules of Kashrut (no mixing of meat and dairy in eating or preparing meals, no forbidden items such as pork or shellfish, no mixing of utensils and serving implements, separation in time between consuming dairy and meat). This last group within the Modern Reform label, those who are observant of the Kashrut practices, is closest to the Conservative and Orthodox practices in this regard.
Among this observant group (as is also true with the Orthodox and Conservative streams of Judaism), some will also be concerned with the issue of verifying the source of items they eat, and will seek markings (called Hechshers) on prepared products that let them know that the product is certified and approved by a given authority. There are many different authorities, each with their own standards; consequently, selecting which hechshers will be accepted by a given community or group is almost an art, and often has an aspect of politics within it. In practice, this is what differentiates between communities and groups most often in the Jewish world.
Some will accept that any unprocessed foodstuff is acceptable (fruits, vegetables, grain, milk, etc.) without a hechsher; others require a hechsher for anything that is in even the slightest way modified (fruit that is picked, or milk that is pasteurized, for example).
With all this as background, we come to the issue of the standards followed by the certifying organizations (or individuals). Some of these groups have concluded that any processing that is done by non-Jews (including cooking, or even picking fruit, for example), makes it impossible for them to certify the food as fully complying with Kashrut, because the person who prepared it may have been someone who engages in something forbidden, such as a form of pagan worship, for example (though it is understood that this is not all that likely today – still, the outside possibility exists, so it has to be considered, is the thinking).
Your question is about items that fall under this last paragraph. Bread and cheese are both manufactured items (they don’t simply grow and get harvested and served). The issue is that even if all the ingredients are perfectly kosher (fit for ritual use), the process of making these items needs to be supervised and overseen so that nothing could possibly be done that would invalidate them as being fully in compliance with the rules of Kashrut so that they can be certified as fit to use.
Added to that, you would have to consider the ingredients themselves: unless each of the ingredients used had its’ own hechsher, or the certifying authority was able to assure the source from its’ origin to the point of use, many of the certifying authorities would not place their mark on the end product.
So the considerations for a person that is observant of Kashrut that could arise without hechshers are:
1) Are the products used in the entire flow from raw materials (milk gathered from kosher animals in clean containers that have never had any non-kosher contents in them, rennet from a non-animal source that will be used to make the cheese, any flavorings of the cheese themselves kosher; or grain raised, harvested and ground without any contact with non-kosher materials, with no non-kosher flavorings added and transported in containers that are compliant with Kashrut) to finished product themselves kosher? In short, were all the ingredients supervised to assure their kosher status?
2) Has anything been added, or has anything been done that would render otherwise kosher ingredients non-Kosher (adding a meat-based flavoring to the milk being made into cheese, or using shortening from an animal source to grease the pan for baking bread, for example)? Is there any possibility of adulteration or unintended material being added at any point throughout the process?
3) Has any step in the manufacturing process been done by someone who does not observe the rules of Kashrut (for example, a non-Jew), and therefore someone who possibly would not be concerned about observing them strictly? Similarly, has the product been out of supervision by someone who is observant for any significant amount of time, where other materials could be introduced intentionally or by accident?
Etc.
The answer to your question in the Reform context would depend on with whom you were speaking.
Someone who is identified as a Classical Reform Jew would most likely have no difficulty in the instance you cite.
For those who are identified as Modern Reform Jews, it would depend on which of the groupings within that rubric they fell under.
For those who do not strictly observe Kashrut rules, in all likelihood, what you describe is more or less what they are doing daily. Most of them do not seek out milk that is identified as Cholov Yisrael (milk that has only been in the control of Jews), for example, and many of them would eat a dairy meal anywhere without concern, a large number would accept all-beef products as acceptable, whatever the source and whatever the slaughering process.
For those who are observant of the rules of Kashrut, the level of strictness they follow will determine their response. Only in the instance of the most strictly observant will this pose an issue. It is far more likely that it would be a concern for those in the Conservative and Orthodox streams, though there are some Reform Jews who will adhere to this level of observance. In many cases, those people will tend to eat a dairy or vegetarian (or even vegan) diet to comply and eliminate most of the concerns with Kashrut.
My suspicion is that you will get a somewhat different answer from my colleagues in different streams.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: A woman in her 3rd marriage refuses to give her husband a get (divorce). For 5 yrs she has promised, and then refuses. The home life is very negative for the children, the woman has been in therapy for years...What can this man do? Does this differ in different movements in Judaism?
I have to admit that this question is perplexing, because it makes some assumptions that I don’t think are warranted.
First, from a Reform Jewish perspective, the agreement of a spouse is not a prerequisite to pursuing a civil divorce (at least in the US – I don’t know about the law of other nations).
Second, the Reform movement does not require (though many of the rabbis within it – including me - strongly urge, and in many cases will not perform remarriage without evidence of) both a civil and a religious divorce, including a formal ‘get’ document being obtained (though the source of this document, and the specifics of the ritual process may vary from rabbi to rabbi and from movement to movement, the concept is similar across the board).
Third, traditionally, the husband issues the get – the wife does not – and if the wife will not agree to receive it, the document can be delivered for the husband through the Beit Din (religious/rabbinical court) to an agent who receives if on her behalf, at which point it becomes effective with or without her agreement, or the husband can seek a dispensation from the religious court to take a second wife, making her refusal irrelevant.
The Reform stream (along with the Reconstructionist, Conservative, and other streams) of Judaism has sought ways to make this process more egalitarian, by empowering both men and women to initiate a get (or to agree to it in advance), and by providing additional means that the process, including delivery and acceptance, can be effected without the parties needing to meet face to face, where that would be a hardship.
Consequently, I see nothing that the woman you describe could do that would prevent the husband in question from divorcing her, if that is truly his desire. The issues of the custody and wellbeing of the children, and the financial dissolution and distribution of the marital property would be determined by the civil court. The religious court would dissolve the Jewish marriage with delivery of the get. The marriage would be terminated in both senses.
The mental state of the woman or her status vis a vis therapy or counseling is not relevant to the divorce itself. Nor is there any obligation or need to seek her agreement or permission to file for divorce, so whether she promises to agree or not is completely irrelevant. The conditions in the home would materially affect the determinations of the civil court, and might be used as evidence of the irreparable nature of the marriage in the religious court, but they do not dispositively determine the outcome of the filing. In most states in the US, divorce is a no-fault proceeding – no one has to prove that the marriage is bad, or that one spouse or the other has violated trust. Those concerns may affect any property division or custody arrangements, but a divorce can generally be obtained, even in situations where the parties simply are not compatible.
The real issues here are motivation and desire. If the man sincerely wishes a divorce and believes that the marriage is over and unsalvageable, he can proceed, but must do so in a clear fashion, including severing any real or perceived marital relations with this woman.
In none of the instances described, no matter the stream of Judaism, can I see any obstacle to this man proceeding (unless, of course, he is not Jewish, in which case this entire discussion is moot, and a get is unnecessary).
For more information about this sort of issue, I suggest you do a search in the JVO question archives on Agunah or Agunot (chained woman or chained women) - those who are identified as married, though the marriage has dissolved or ended, and the spouse is no longer there/presumably dead. You will find in that discussion that there is no such thing as a 'chained man' in Jewish tradition, so the situation you describe in your question is at best an oddity.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: If I am taking time out of my work schedule to meet with an interviewer for a job, am I obligated to tell my current employer? I don't know how to get away from the office for the interview without lying & going against my Jewish & personal values, but I do not feel comfortable telling my employer that I am seeking employment elsewhere.
Your questions balance issues of duty to an employer and your privacy (which can be seen as a duty to yourself).
Trying to act in an ethical and fair manner is commendable. I would respond from a Reform Jewish perspective (though I am not sure that there is much difference between the various streams of Judaism in this matter) as follows. First, let’s examine the duty to your employer. In favor of disclosure, to some degree or other, you do have an obligation to your employer. Clearly, you can’t simply not show up for work, or walk out without saying a word. If there is a policy that you arrange for time off in advance, you have to comply, whether this is time for a job interview, a vacation, or a medical appointment. To do otherwise would be abusive to the employer – and under the principle of al tono ish et amecha (a person should not take advantage of or abuse their fellow), that would be prohibited. Likewise, to leave and not tell the employer, and hope they didn’t notice would be forbidden as a form of theft (lo tignov). If your job is one that can be performed at any time, asking for flexibility, by shifting your hours for a given day should not raise any concerns for your employer. For example, if you do data entry online from home, and are responsible for working a certain number of hours in a week but when is up to you, shifting the hours a bit one day should not create a hardship for your employer. You may need to let them know you are doing so, or even that you are taking a few hours of vacation time, depending on their policies and practices. If your job is time-sensitive (if it must be done at a specific time and place, such as caring for animals, attending a meeting, or covering a specific shift), or this is the ‘busy season’ for your employer, in addition to informing them that you will need to be away for a time, you may also need to work with your employer to find alternate coverage for the time you are away – which is part of the reason for advance notice. Unless you took the job with the understanding that at this particular time (of year, month, or whatever), you would not take time off for a valid business reason, your employer has a duty to allow you to have time off (for this reason most CPAs would not expect to be able to take time off in the weeks leading up to April 15th without a really good reason, but if they ask for time in the month of May off, they probably can expect to have it) There are duties owed by an empoyer to the employee (see other answers on JVO concerning this matter).
If you arrange to take time off for a medical appointment, there is no obligation to disclose or discuss what medical exams or procedures are being performed on you, and similarly, if you take vacation time, you are not obliged to discuss or clear your vacation plans with your employer. Time that you are away from your workplace and your job is your own; you have no duty to your employer to account for it. If your employer demands information that is not relevant to your employment, that is an intrusion into your life, and a violation of your privacy that is unwarranted. This line between work and private life becomes more ‘fuzzy’ if your behavior during private time crosses over and degrades your performance at work, such as excessive drinking, or taking drugs, or getting arrested and jailed, and coming (or not coming in for the last esample) to work unable or unready to fully perform. But short of that kind of crossing over, what you do in your private time should not be a concern of your employer. On your time, whether you play video games, go to the movies, visit friends, clean your house, nap, or order pizza is not their concern. The conclusion I draw is that you must inform your employer that you are taking time off, but not for what reason.
Question: I have been invited to a ceremonial stone unveiling that I will not be able to attend. I would like to acknowledge the event in some way, but I am not familiar with the acceptable customs and do not want to offend the family in any way. Is it appropriate to send a card or a gift of some kind to the family to acknowledge the event?
Your instinct is good, but not quite on target. An unveiling does not call for a gift, and unlike the period of Shiva (the time of the gathering of the mourners, and attendance on them by visitors/comforters) the sending or bringing of food (or other gifts) is not expected or really appropriate.
An acknowledgment is what is called for: a card, or even better, a personal note, acknowledging the event (and thereby the reason for it), and perhaps expressing regret that you cannot attend, would be both appreciated and very appropriate.
In the same vein, if you were to make a charitable donation in memory of the deceased, with an acknowledgment sent to the family by the recipient organization, that would be a quite appropriate action. It might perhaps be even better if it were a donation to a charitable cause named or supported by the deceased or the family at the time of the death, or somehow directly related to the deceased and/or family (for example, a donation to the American Diabetes Association for someone who died of complications from diabetes, or to the congregation to which the deceased belonged and where they served as an officer, or to an organization which family members actively support).
The important thing here is the acknowledgment, letting the family know that you are aware of this milestone event in their life, and ideally, that you are sensitive to their feelings as they are moving through the process of grieving their loss.
Rabbi Joe Blair Question: I invited a dear non-Jewish friend to my Pesach dinner for the second night. She wrote back stating that her other Jewish friends told her it would be inappropriate for her to attend. As a new Jew I find this off-putting. Were we not strangers in Egypt??
A good question – one that brings attention to two Jewish values that must be balanced – a question worthy of this time of year, when we are encouraged to ask questions. :-)
You don’t say anything about the stream of Judaism in which you (now) practice, but in any case it sounds as if you are finding one of the areas where there may be different opinions to be had even within a particular stream. For example, in a more stringent, halachic (Jewish legal) community, there can be several concerns that may underlie a reluctance to invite someone who is not Jewish to a seder (or a meal on a holiday or a Shabbat).
One may be a concern with inviting a non-Jew to a holiday or Sabbath meal, because one will be cooking for that meal. The idea is that the leniency of allowing one to cook in advance of (or on) the holiday by using the concept of an Eruv Tavshilin (the partial cooking ahead of time, only completing the process on the holiday), for example, should not be used to prepare food for someone who is not obligated to observe the holiday and is not themselves restricted from cooking. Since you are only supposed to make as much as you will need – no more – making extra for a non-Jewish guest is problematic. This restriction is a large part of why some people will not invite a non-Jew to join them for a meal on a holiday (and all the more so, on Shabbat, when all cooking is prohibited).
Another argument that may be advanced is that one should not have a non-Jew, someone who is not obliged to observe the holiday, join you to do so. At various times and places in Jewish history, this restriction had to do with protecting oneself, for example, from informers in the wake of the Inquisition. In other times and places, it was simply that you were including them in the ritual of the seder, which is directed to be held with those in your household, where only the members of your household are to eat of the offering; only if your family is too small to consume the entire offering are you to join with another household (in the same situation) in order to finish the entire offering. (Shemot/Exodus 12). From this, the understanding is taken that only those in your household, and by extension, those who are part of Am Yisra’el, are to be included in the ritual – so non-Jews would be excluded.
I would guess that in a community where Halachah is followed, these restrictions would be brought to bear to support not inviting a non-Jew to a seder, and there may be more reasons.
At the same time, even in these more halachically oriented communities, there would be a tendency towards the acceptance of a non-Jew at the seder for other reasons.
The restriction on cooking may be put aside if, for example, it is to save a life. I suspect it could be argued that if a starving person were to appear at the door at the time of the seder, it would be legitimate to claim that one must allow him in and feed him to preserve his life; in that case the concept of pikuach nefesh might trump the halachic restriction on cooking for a non-Jew on a holiday. A variation on this might be if the prince or king of a state appeared and demanded that they be invited to the seder and to eat to prove that nothing evil or nefarious was going on, and to disobey or disregard such an order might lead to persecution and even the death of Jews. In this case, it seems to me, that it would likely be appropriate to include them and even to cook for them.
To invite non-Jews to the seder has been discussed and approved, at least in some instances, in Mishna Berurah 512 6 (Commentary on Orach Chayim by the Chofetz Chayim). More, there is an argument that could be offered that the limitation on inviting a non-Jew to a ritual act (the seder) should not apply, as the seder is not itself the ritual or cultic act; it is an educational re-telling/explaining of the story (the mitzvah is to tell), and so anyone could be invited because it is not the actual ritual in itself.
So even in an observant, halachic community, there are a variety of responses, depending on the circumstances, and I would venture to say that practices vary from place to place.
In the Reform stream (about which I am writing), the idea of inclusion is much stronger, with greater emphasis on outreach to and education of non-Jews, as well as Jews. In addition, given the common practices among many Reform Jews regarding a very relaxed view concerning application of Kashrut (dietary restrictions) and the understanding that halachah (Jewish law) is generally not binding on them today (while the ethical – or prophetic - precepts concerning social justice and treatment of others are generally to be followed in full), the concerns noted above are not particularly relevant in the mind of many in the Reform movement - so inviting a non-Jew would not be a difficult choice to make.
Adding to that, with the current rate of intermarriage (at least in the USA) exceeding 50% in many locales, the frequent blending of families, and the free mixing and socializing of Jews and non-Jews today, there are many families that contain both Jewish and non-Jewish members; to hold that only the Jewish members of a family could participate in a family seder seems counter-intuitive, at best.
For most Reform Jews, there seems no reason to hold that we are to exclude anyone from attending a seder, and they, too, can point to the concepts you ask about in your question: if we are to remember and treat the stranger as we would ourselves, how can we legitimately exclude them from our sedarim (plural of seder)?
In sum then, the Reform answer would tend to be that one can invite non-Jews to attend, and even participate in, the seder.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: In religious [observant] Jewish communities, how much room or tolerance is there for secular interests and desires? I live near a large Jewish community, and from an outside perspective I have the impression that with the emphasis on [following the norms, such as] getting married, upholding family values, and [engaging in] Torah study, and everything that goes with living in a such a community, following their [community members'] heart and doing something they may want to do, such as going travelling or learning an instrument, is either not considered acceptable, or not their 1st priority.
In addition to this I can't help but think that they view gentiles and the secular world with a touch of suspicion.
What do religious Jews think of the secular world and secular values? Is there room and tolerance for them to follow their interests, or do they have to conform only to Jewish community values and expectations?
I don’t mean this to be a rant, and apologies if it is seen as one - its just something that’s on my mind and I would be interested to know the truth.
I suspect that I am probably going to be seen as going on a rant of my own here. As you say, I don’t mean it to be, and I don’t wish to offend, but what I have to say is not easy to express, and can be heard as negative.
My colleagues have fairly well presented the facts; no need for me to repeat them.
Quick answers:
1. All human beings follow their own priorities, which are set in line with their values. Observant Jews do exactly the same thing. If they give a greater weight to family, marriage, living in community, and Jewish study, obviously they will focus on and engage more in those things. Apparently, from your question, these are not the priorities that you have set.
2. You are expressing ‘suspicion’ about the observant Jews who are not like you; why should they be held to a different standard concerning those who are not like them? It is just as legitimate for them to ask what the ‘secular world’ thinks and values, and what priorities are set in that population.
3. No one can speak for ‘religious Jews’ or ‘all Jews’, anymore than anyone can speak for all males, or all Americans, or all left handed people. I know some people who are observant religious Jews, and I would say that almost all of them are quite tolerant of, and even open to, the ‘secular world’ and its values – by which you mean people like yourself – though they may not choose to follow the trends and fads or participate in all the activities that are available there. Others may be suspicious (as you term it), or even hostile to the secular world. Observant Jews are individuals, like anyone else, and their reactions are shaped by their life experiences and opinions.
4. I am not sure why you think that they are not following their own interests in conforming to Jewish community values and expectations. Isn’t it quite possible that they share those values and expectations, and the things they do ARE their interests?
I would add that not only does it seem that the assumptions presented by your questions are inaccurate, they rather seriously tend to err in ascribing a monolithic sameness to Judaism and Jews which is not in keeping with reality. It is no more possible to say that ‘all Jews are x’ than it is to say that ‘all British people are y,’ ‘all bald people are w,’ ‘all Christians are z,’ or ‘all religious Christians do q.’ A rule of thumb is that when someone trots out that kind of a formulaic statement, whatever they are about to say is both wrong, and most often an expression of prejudice without factual support.
I would respond to you that the truth is that a lot of what you are seeing is either colored by your own filters, or is based on incorrect or inadequate information. I hope that you will be open enough to really go and find out more, and get past the stereotypes that you are burdened by so you can reach the truth for yourself, stop seeing others as judging you for not being them, and not do the same thing yourself.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: My father is near death, and among many anxieties I'm going through is the feeling of dread at having to arrange the funeral etc. I know this seems trifling considering what my dad's going through, but I'm also terrified of speaking in front of a gathering; I'll have to say something at the funeral...will it be OK if I just say I LOVED MY FATHER VERY MUCH, AND I MISS HIM TERRIBLY, then walk off the dais? Or do I have to mention this and that...Sorry, I'm "Fahklumpt" at the moment.
Let me start by offering your father my sincere wishes for healing, whether that be physical or other, so that he may reach a sense of wholeness and peace. I also wish you the same wholeness, particularly emotionally and spiritually.
Regarding the preparations: with the thought of helping to ease your dread, let me suggest that you try to recall if your father has ever expressed what he would want for his funeral. If he preplanned or wrote directions, following his wishes should feel easier, and may make you feel less pressure about the process of preparation. If he has never said anything, and he is in a position to tell you, perhaps you can speak to him and ask. If he cannot tell you now, perhaps he has spoken to others in the family in past.
If you can find no information, then you will need to make some assumptions about what you think your father would want, which you can base on information you know or can readily gather, or obtain from the rabbi and/or funeral director. Matters such as how traditional your father is, how drawn he has been to ritual observance, the customs in his religious community and the area, the rules of the cemetery organization, and requirements of the rabbi (or other person) who will officiate, will all help set the parameters for the funeral. With all of this, there are really not too many decisions for you to make, and once you initiate the process, all the pieces will fall into place fairly smoothly. The major tasks left to you will be notifying others – family and friends. So, as sad as the task may be, you need not dread it – others will help you through it.
As to speaking: your fear of public speaking is a very common one – you are certainly not alone. Not to be flip, but a survey of Americans showed that given a choice, a majority said they would prefer to be in the casket rather than delivering a eulogy next to it.
Speaking at the funeral of a loved family member is not an easy task. On the one hand, you may be emotionally swamped by sadness, sorrow, loss, and grief, among other emotions, while at the same time you feel pressure and want to be able to share something significant about the person and how much they meant to you and others. When you add to all that the underlying fear of speaking in public, you have a potent mix that can overcome the strongest among us. So it is certainly understandable that you might be worried about speaking at the funeral.
Only you can know how you will bear up and react. If you are able to speak, there is no one else who can honor your father at that moment better than you, no matter how eloquent their words or how famous or effective a public speaker they might be. Yours are the words of a beloved child for their parent at the time of loss; spoken with emotion and honesty there is no more fitting statement or expression of feeling that can be offered.
If you can express yourself there, even if you are interrupted by displays of emotion, it is certain to be a meaningful way for you to honor your father. As hard as it may be, you will know that you did your best for your parent at that time.
And if you feel that you will be too overcome by emotion to speak, perhaps you can write out what you want to say, and ask someone else to deliver your words. That will still be an honest expression of your sense of loss and understanding of what you have lost.
Either way, you will be honoring the memory of your father, which is the purpose of the hesped (or eulogy). So, to answer your question, I would urge you to prepare to speak, then do so if you are able, or ask that someone else read your words if you are not.
As for what to say, there is no set requirement for length or content. At the same time, if you are the primary speaker for the hesped, it would seem appropriate to say more than that you loved your father very much and will miss him. The hesped is to help others remember the person who is no longer with us, to paint a word picture of them, honestly recalling his or her best, the good deeds and kindnesses, the actions and the character traits, which will all be missed, but remembered, as the lasting legacy of that person.
Unless someone else will be addressing these kinds of recollections, it would seem to be a brusque send off not to mention any of this, so I would suggest that you consider writing more than you indicate, and then, if you feel that you can only deliver the statement you indicate yourself, you can have someone else read the rest of what you write, on your behalf. That way, you will have fully honored the memory of your father, and done what you felt you were able at the moment.
May you be granted the strength and courage to deal with this, and to act in a way that would make your family proud of you.
Rabbi Joe Blair Question: Can a woman initiate a Jewish divorce if a husband refuses sexual relations?
Speaking about Halachah (Jewish law), as a general principle the answer to this question would be yes.
Traditional sources (the Torah and the Bavli) set forth that a man has an obligation to satisfy his wife’s sexual urges on some regular basis; failing this we can deduce that he may be compelled to divorce her (issue a Get/divorce decree).
This obligation is, however, not unlimited. The husband is obliged to a varying schedule, depending on his type of work. The texts speak of physical laborers having an obligation to greater frequency than a scholar, for example, and the obligation described is very varied, spanning the range of multiple times a week to once a year. Similarly, the husband’s ability to seek sexual satisfaction from his wife may be limited by his type of work; if he is engaged in a type of enterprise that has unpleasant effects on his person he may be limited in the frequency that he may approach his wife (the classic example is a tanner, who works with noxious smelling liquids, the stench of which remains on his person even after bathing).
Other conditions may also play a part in a determination. If either the wife or husband has in some fashion made themselves physically abhorrent to their partner, or otherwise caused sexual relations to be difficult, dangerous, or unpleasant, the obligation may be modified or even cancelled. An example of such a situation might be if one spouse were to engage in illegal behavior and later to contract an untreatable STD that is a danger to life or health, if the other spouse discovered their condition, and it is likely that intercourse would infect the innocent spouse, any obligation to engage in intercourse would likely be obviated.
The only way to answer this question definitively is to pose the question to a competent Jewish legal authority, providing all the facts so that a complete analysis can be made and a decision taken. If this is something that is being considered, I would urge that the person asking this question approach their rabbi for advice on both whether and how to proceed.
Rabbi Joe Blair Question: Do you think a new Canaanite Movement, a la Yonatan Ratosh, could be appropriate for our times? Why not?
It would seem to me that harkening back to a movement from the 1940s that wanted to return to a time some 3000 years in the past is not the way of progress. More, it would appear to me to be unworkable, as well as regressive. I tend to disbelieve that the present day nations, such as Egypt, would agree to be subsumed in usch a scheme. Frankly, it seems ludicrous to me that anyone would think they could ‘undo’ or wipe out history. So no, I would not think it appropriate, or even reasonable to entertain this idea.
Question: Does Judaism believe in"karma"?
It depends what you mean by ‘karma’.
My colleagues have explained some of the differences between the Buddhist and Hindu uses of this term, and how it both fits and does not fit within Judaism. So in a sense, it really depends on what you are asking.
If you mean by the term, ‘does what goes around come around’, probably I would say yes, that could be found in Judaism (as you do, so do others to you; tzedakah averts the severity of the decree; etc.).
If, however, you mean that ‘because I sinned in the past (or a past life) I have to pay back now (in this one)’, I would say no, that doesn’t seem to fit within normative Judaism. Similarly, if you mean, ‘do I keep coming back and living lives until I get it right’, then I would have to say probably not. Not that it is impossible for a Jew to hold this view – there is, after all, no dogma about what happens after we die – but it seems contrary to the ‘here and now’ aspect of Judaism, that we are both rewarded and punished in this life for our actions, as well as to the concept of a merciful and compassionate G-d.
Question: My religious neighbor points to the events in the Middle East and claims that we are seeing the end of days. It does feel rather scary and chaotic, but I'm not sure I believe in that whole concept. Can you explain Judaism's view on "Armageddon"? And could this be it?
The term ‘Armageddon’ is from the Christian bible, and not part of Jewish scripture at all. It describes (as I understand it) an apocalyptic event, when good and evil will battle for the world. In the end (as I recall the story) evil will triumph for a time, then be vanquished – but this will occur at the end of time, or end of days.
This viewpoint seems to me to be antithetical to Judaism because it is dualistic in nature. In effect, it sets up G-d as good, and something else as Evil personified or made manifest, and the evil is similar in power to G-d. Judaism rejects this utterly; as a (the original) monotheistic religion, there can be no rival gods to battle G-d. G-d created all; that means all is subject to G-d’s will and power. So the underpinnings of this idea are outside of Judaism, and not applicable for Jews.
At the same time, there is nowhere in Judaism that demands we hold the idea that G-d is controlling every single event and circumstance. That too, is not particularly in line with normative Judaism, because it contravenes the concept of free will, which is both normative and pretty much a ‘given’ condition. If G-d were making you act badly to your younger sibling, you would have no choice in the matter, and to punish you for bad behavior would be unfair. Instead, Judaism holds that G-d may know what you will choose (after all, your past behavior is likely to predict what you will do even in the view of your parents and friends), but you have the ability to choose, and a real choice. If you somehow rise above your habitual actions, you can choose to change what you do in this instance (and, we hope, for the future). Similarly, if G-d were to force someone to do evil, they would have no choice, and since they were doing G-d’s will, how could they be evil? So this approach doesn’t make much sense in a Jewish context.
Because people can choose to do evil and bad things, and peoples/nations are ruled and led by people, nations can also do evil and bad things. This can lead to chaotic and scary times, but the normative Jewish view is that it is not because G-d is picking out individuals to suffer and causing evil to them. Only in such books as Job (in the third section of the Tanakh/Hebrew bible) do we read that G-d singles out an individual, and that is for reasons we do not (and cannot) fathom.
So overall, this idea is not part of Jewish thought, and would not be valid currency in the Jewish community. My colleague in his answer from an Orthodox perspective has provided many of the citations that are pertinent and appropriate; I will not replicate them here.
Question: What are the Jewish rulings on cybersex (defined as two people exchanging sexual messages over the internet, often in chatrooms) and pornography, for men and for women?
Cybersex, internet sex, online sex, phone sex, sex chat rooms, and many other variations of terms and names exist, but they are all talking about pretty much the same thing. And that is little different than the older ‘technology’ of peep shows, "men's" magazines, and the like. All of them are variations on a theme, and the Jewish answers are closely related to those concerning porn films and live sex shows.
[On the Jewish Values Online website, search for ‘internet sex’ or ‘cheating’, or look in the category ‘Sexuality’ and sub-category ‘Adultery’ for various questions and answers that have been submitted and answered concerning this topic.]
Essentially, there are several parameters that need to be examined to respond to this question.
A. If the person is a single adult not in any sort of relationship, and is reading materials or viewing content of a sexual nature that is arousing to them, there is no direct exchange or sexual interaction. This might be considered as being similar to fantasizing, which is permissible.
B. However, even in this situation, with materials there is the added concern that there is some form of interaction with others, in that someone wrote those materials, and more so, in images, someone posed for and/or took the photographs or video; there is no direct interaction, but this can still be seen as exploitative, and use of these items may be without real consent on the part of the depicted individual(s) [the leaked sex tapes of celebrities, as an example]. Consequently, this is a gray area; it is not clear that this can ever really be said to be fully permissible, because it is impossible to gain real consent.
A. If the persons are both unmarried adults who consent, it is one thing.
B. However, if one or both of the parties is married (to someone other than the other party to this exchange), then this behavior is wrong.
A. Any such exchanges involving children or minors are utterly wrong (as well as illegal).
B. Similarly, this is wrong for any relationship where there is coercion or force (an employer-employee or supervisor-worker situation, for example), or if the exchange is unwanted on the part of either party.
A. If the two persons are not eligible to each other (blood relatives, for example), then this exchange is wrong.
B. If these are complete strangers engaging in this exchange, people
who have never met and have no intention or likelihood of any further interactions, this is not a meaningful legitimate relationship, and is wrong because it is simply using another as an object to satisfy oneself.
C. On the other hand, if a committed couple or a married couple
choose to engage in such exchanges with each other, it would seem to be permissible, if both participate willingly, under the concept that this may enhance their communication, and increase their sexual satisfaction with each other.
The conclusion would seem to be that according to Jewish thought and Halachah (law) such behaviors are wrong in most instances, and only allowed and appropriate within the context of a meaningful legitimate committed relationship, and only with real consent and agreement of the parties involved.
Rabbi Joe Blair Question: If it is true that smoking cigars is against halachah (Jewish law), then why do many religious people have an occasional cigar or pipe? (I am not talking about cigarettes which are known to be Assur/forbidden).
You have posed an interesting question regarding human nature. In a similar vein, why do people eat things they know are not healthy for them? Why do people fail to get enough sleep or exercise when they know if is necessary for their wellbeing? Why do people exceed the speed limit in driving when they know if is against the law, and may be dangerous?
The response for all of these questions seems to me to be either that there is no good answer, or that there are as many answers as there are people doing these things.
I note that your question was indirectly addressed in another question that came to JVO. It was:
Is smoking an occasional cigar or cigarette, without inhaling, against halacha? (because you don’t really end up being unhealthy this way). [It can be found at this URL:] http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=335&cprg=/search.php%3Fsearchtxt%3Dsmoking%26what%3DA
I don’t think that there is any better answer to your question than was given in the responses to that question. Though there are excuses that could be offered (it is a habit, people are addicted, the harm is long-term and not immediate, etc.), and one could point out that the history of these behaviors predates the knowledge that they are unhealthful, there is really no good reply that can be given you that deals with Jewish values, morals, ethics, or derekh eretz (proper behavior). Consequently, I don’t see a value in asking for additional responses from rabbis on this site. I suggest you take a look at the answers provided in the question noted. If you have another question that you wish to pose that is more directly related to Jewish values, ethics, morals, or derekh eretz, please feel free to submit it to JVO, just as you did this one.
Thank you for asking.
Question: Is smoking an occassional cigar or cigarette, without inhaling, against halacha? (because you dont really end up being unhealthy this way).
Smoking is an extremely unfortunate addiction for those who are saddled with it. Your question strikes me as coming from someone who is not yet fully addicted, but seems to be on the way (and I am bypassing all inclinations towards any snide comments about ‘not inhaling’).
Because of the clear, well understood connection between the use of tobacco and significantly increased health risks, if I were to issue a Psak Din (a halachic ruling) I would favor banning smoking and tobacco use.
Of course, because I am a member of the Reform and Reconstrucitonist Rabbinical associations (not a member of an Orthodox or Conservative rabbinical association), and my congregants and community members would not likely accept or follow an Halachic ruling (whether issued by me or another rabbi), I am not likely to engage in or undertake that exercise. I have made every effort I can to encourage those I know not to smoke – either not to start, or to strive to quit. I do not allow smoking in my presence in the areas I control, and I will not willingly go to a facility where I am subjected to a smoke ‘attack’.
For those whose communities and congregations would follow such a ruling, I am unclear as to why such a ruling has not been issued. I recall that there was some discussion in both the Conservative and Orthodox rabbinate around this issue, back a number of years, and the tone of the discussion at that time seemed to favor outlawing smoking. I don’t know what happened. I hope that one of my colleagues and fellow panelists in the Conservative and/or Orthodox streams will address this.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: Is Tu B'Shvat of any significance outside of the land of Israel, and if so, what is that significance?
Tu Be’Shevat (the 15th of the month of Shevat) certainly has significance outside the land of Israel! It us understood to be the time when the sap begins to rise in the Almond trees so that they are the first to blossom, and then to fruit. It symbolizes the beginning of a new cycle of growth, renewal, and birth, and the coming Spring. This is a fairly universal concern.
Tu Be’Shevat is biblically based (directing good husbandry in orchards through the mitzvah of waiting to harvest produce from a tree for commercial purposes until it establishes a sufficiently strong root system to support itself), and discussed in the Talmud. .
The celebration of Tu Be’Shevat is in the same category as the prayers for Tal and Geshem (dew and rain in the land of Israel) that are incorporated into the Amidah (the Standing prayer, also known as the Shemoneh Esreh/ the 18 blessings, and as HaTefillah/The Prayer) which is central to the three worship services daily. It speaks directly to the tie of Jews everywhere to the land/ the earth/Creation, and reminds us of the cycle of life. It also connects us to the seasons and cycles of our spiritual and historical homeland, Israel.
Though the origin of the holiday is practical, tied to horticulture in Israel, it has come to have much broader application as time has passed.
The Kabbalists (around the 16th Century) used this holiday to make the connection between heaven and earth, between G-d and Creation. They started with the image of the tree as an analogy for Torah (it is a tree of life). In some of the more mystical approaches, they used the concept of a tree as the image of the Sephirot (the ten traits of G-d we may experience in the world), and saw that mystical tree as rooted in Heaven, with the branches and leaves in this world, and the fruit as the benefits the righteous can find and from which they benefit.
Since the establishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948, the Jewish National Fund (JNF) has regularly encouraged support of their work in transforming the desert to bloom by seeking donations to plant trees, certainly around this holiday.
Starting largely in the 1960’s, Environmentalists have seized on this holiday (as is also true of Arbor Day in the US), as a time of focus on the world around us, encouraging planting, recycling, and good practices regarding use of natural resources and care of the earth.
Most recently, there has been a conflation of the concerns in the Environmentalist ranks with a Social Justice (Tzedek/Righteousness) thrust in the application of the concept of Kashrut. Kashrut has in past been concerned with which items (animals, plants, birds, fish) are suitable to eat, and how they may be prepared (largely in the areas of harvesting and cooking) to remain fit and ritually ‘clean’ or ‘pure’. This newer marriage of Kashrut with Social Justice and Environmentalism has led to the development of the ideas that are forming the basis of Eco-Kashrut; a focus not only on which items are fit, but how they are raised, handled, and prepared for use, how the process of producing them affects the world of Creation around us, and how those involved in the process of production and those who are the end users/consumers are treated and impacted. It is a far broader view, looking at the items themselves, how they are produced, how that affects the environment and society, how those involved in the production are affected, and how those who consume these products are affected.
Especially in this newest fashion, the concerns of Tu Be’Shevat are relevant, not only in Israel, but throughout the world. I am sure you can think of examples; if not, a glance at the headlines of late may bring several to mind.
I would urge that the celebration of Tu Be’Shevat serves us as a (or another) reminder that we are the caretakers of our world. We can use and benefit from it, if we do so appropriately, but we should neither be profligate nor reckless with the world around us. Thus, celebrating Tu Be’Shevat is needed and important until we (humankind) learn the lesson and act accordingly.
Rabbi Joe Blair Question: I have two tattoos. I got them when I was younger (of course). I would like to do what I can to be forgiven by G-d for such a sin. Since I am not a practicing Jew (but deeply believe in my religion (sounds hypocritical) I do not know what it is that I can do. Remove them? There is no guarantee that they would be totally removed. I feel as if a tattoo is a worse sin than others. If you grew up eating bacon, you can stop. Guidance would be appreciated.
Two questions were previously submitted to Jewish Values Online that are connected to yours. I suggest you read them and the answers provided, as well as what is posted here.
1. 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? http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=49&cprg=/search.php%3Fsearchtxt%3Dtatoos%26what%3DA
2. Can a Jew be buried with a tattoo or body piercing? How has this changed over time, if it has, and what is the reason behind the prohibition? http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=199&cprg=/search.php%3Fsearchtxt%3Dtatoos%26what%3DA
Although you don’t ask about burial, the information provided concerning tatoos is still relevant.
Let me start by offering you some reassurance: having a tattoo is not a worse sin than others, and does not outweigh them. I think that if you weigh it in balance against the sins of murder, adultery, or theft, thinking clearly, you will see that the scale of seriousness is tilted far more to the others than to having a tattoo.
More: what you will find on consideration of the issue is that the error you committed in Jewish terms is the choice to get the tattoo; the tattoo itself, once placed, is not a recurring trespass (though it may be a continual ongoing reminder of your mistake/error). You only get a tattoo one time: the choice to acquire it is made at that point in time. You do not make that choice every day you have a tattoo.
If the view that having a tattoo in itself is a violation of Jewish law were true, then all Holocaust survivors who have tattooed numbers on their arms would be obliged to try to eradicate them, and clearly no such thing is the case – they bear no fault for having been forced to have a tattoo: simply having a tatoo is not in itself a ‘sin’. Similarly, if a non-Jewish person has multiple tattoos, and then converts to Judaism, it is not obligatory for that person to remove the tattoo(s) on conversion. The choice in that case to acquire them was not subject to Jewish restrictions or law (the person was not Jewish at that time), and simply having tattoos is not in itself a significant transgression (though it may offend sensibilities).
In your case, you were self-identified as a Jew (though not practicing religiously); you consciously chose to get tattooed (violating a mitzvah, or commandment). Now, you have the tattoos, and you are concerned about the trespass you committed by getting them.
It would seem to me from what you say that you are in the process of Teshuvah (repentance) for the transgression you committed in deciding to acquire a tattoo. You have identified the act that you committed as being ‘wrong’, you have grown to be sorry for having committed it.
If you have done what you can to minimize the injury it may have caused others (perhaps parents, siblings, or other relatives), sought their forgiveness (and your own), and you have resolved not to do so again, then you have taken the necessary and sufficient steps for the process of Teshuvah. The upshot is that now that you have completed the steps of Teshuvah, you may ask G-d for forgiveness for any trespass this action was against G-d.
Further, since removal of a tattoo is painful, uncertain, and can pose significant dangers to your health (removal is, after all by burning the tattooed skin away, albeit with a laser), there is no obligation in Jewish law to undertake that as part of Teshuvah for having gotten a tatoo.
If you feel so badly about having the tattoo that it causes you to want it gone despite the possible danger, cost, and pain, you can decide to proceed with a removal attempt. If you choose this option, please do consult a qualified physician about the process, and attend to all the precautions and safety advice given to minimize the danger and pain.
I wish you well, and hope that you will find it possible to forgive yourself.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: If a child is born to a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father, how is s/he named? Is it still ben (or bat) biodad's English name? Or..?
A similar question was asked and answered on Jewish Values Online. You can see it, and the answers:
If a child is called to the Torah as a Bar Mitzvah, if the father has passed away, and a step father is taking the parental duties, how should the child be called to the torah by name, as ben birthfather or stepfather's name? is it possible to call him up as both to respect both men? http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=152&cprg=/search.php%3Fsearchtxt%3Dname%26what%3DA
Here, you ask not about substituting one name for another, but using a non-Jewish name, the name of the non-Jewish father. Without doing any research, I can tell you what I have often seen and done in a situation such as that you describe.
The child is Jewish, and when named it is Ploni ben Floni in Hebrew. In other words, it is Child’s Hebrew name son of (or daughter of) Mother’s Hebrew name. In the Hebrew no mention is made of the non-Jewish father’s name.
In any English usage, such as on a certificate, I do include the father’s name in the English – the father’s name is omitted only in the Hebrew.
I know that I have encountered some documents where the person filling in the names transliterated (wrote in Hebrew letters the English name of the non-Jewish parent). I am not in favor of that practice generally, because it leads to confusion down the road. Since these documents are sometimes used to confirm Jewish identity or status, transliteration of a non-Jewish name can lead to confusion and mistaken assumptions at some later time.
The answer I would offer you is that the child would be named Ploni bar (bat) Floni (the mother’s Hebrew name), with no reference to the father in the Hebrew.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: This is a question of Jewish law in a case pertaining to murder/killing in the course of a robbery. The defendant was in a bank and stabbed a guard with a knife; the guard died instantly. There were two witnesses, one of whom tried to warn the defendant that he would be subject to death if he killed the guard. However, the murderer did not acknowledge her warning. The other witness just stood idly by.
If we are trying to offer a defense for the defendant, what would Jewish law say that might help do so?
This is a question of Jewish law in a case pertaining to murder/killing in the course of a robbery. The defendant was in a bank, and stabbed a guard with a knife; the guard died instantly. There were two witnesses, one of whom tried to warn the defendant that he would be subject to death if he killed the guard, however, the murderer did not acknowledge her warning. The other witness just stood idly by. If we are trying to offer a defense for the defendant, what would Jewish law say that might help do so?
There are a number of factors that might be brought forward here to try to mitigate the severity of the punishment that Jewish law would otherwise impose.
First, there is a significant difference between killing a murder. Killing can sometimes be justified, while murder is not.
If the guard were the aggressor, or had a gun which he was drawing to fire on the defendant, there might be an argument that this was killing, not murder, in that the defendant was forced to act in fear for his own life, and that the taking of the life of the guard was unavoidable. In this situation, the guard would be presented as the pursuer and the defendant as the one pursued.
Second, for guilt to be established in Jewish law, two competent witnesses are required. Here, as one witness simply stood there, there is an argument that could be presented about that witnesses competency.
Third, the witnesses must warn the person who is about to transgress against that act in a way that assures the one about to act hears and understands the warning, and is aware of the severity of their action and the consequences. The issues of adequacy, and of receiving and understanding the warning would be things to raise as a possible line of defense here.
These are all issues to explore in developing a potential defense.
Rabbi Joe Blair
[Note: Jewish Values Online cannot complete school work for students; your instructor has assigned that work for you to accomplish in order to maximize your learning. The question submitted has been modified to be more generic and of interest to a broader audience.]
Question: Is it possible/acceptable to have a bar/bat mitzvah after the normal age?
Thank you for writing to Jewish Values Online.
A related question was posed earlier. It was: “My grandfather celebrated a second bar mitzvah. Can you explain the reason behind his doing so and if this is a ceremony expected of all Jews of a certain age?”, and the answers given can be found at:
From that question, you can see that it is possible to celebrate a Bar or Bat Mitzvah after the normal age.
Bar Mitzvah (or Bat Mitzvah, for a woman) is a phrase that indicates a change in status. The phrase Bar Mitzvah literally means ‘son of the commandments’ (Bat Mitzvah means ‘daughter of the commandments’), and implies that a person who has achieved that status is responsible for their religious behavior and choices, and is obligated to follow the commandments or laws set forth for Jews in the Torah. It is not an event or a ritual. The ritual and celebration that most people mistakenly refer to as the “Bar Mitzvah” event is unnecessary for the change in status to occur.
It simply happens; just as an American citizen who simply reaches their 18th birthday is automatically rendered eligible to enter into contracts, and on reaching their 21st birthday is rendered legally allowed to consume alcohol (in most jurisdictions). They need do nothing, there is no ritual, yet the change in status occurs on the passing of the date, whether they mark it or not.
Similarly, technically one becomes a Bar Mitzvah (or Bat Mitzvah) on their thirteenth birthday (though some hold that as in past, for young women the age is twelve, as young women are understood to mature faster - certainly physically, and often emotionally as well; but this difference in age to mark the change in status is not universally accepted today; most Reform communities use the age of thirteen for both genders).
In Jewish law centuries ago, this change in status would coincide with becoming considered an adult, and eligible to marry and take on responsibilities in the community. Today we generally don’t believe that a thirteen year old is ready to be an adult in most ways, and we certainly don’t expect them to marry at that point, but we do feel that they are ready to become participating, responsible, and contributing members of their religious community.
The ritual, which does not cause, but celebrates this change in status, is a mutual understanding between the person and the community. On the one hand, the person is asking to be accepted by the community, and offering a demonstration that they are prepared for their role by being adequately educated and capable of contributing to the life of that community. The community, on the other hand, is recognizing their status, and welcoming that person as a full member, and offering them the highest possible honor by calling them up for an Aliyah (the honor of being called up to recite the blessings over reading the Torah), and by having them represent the community in worship by leading prayers for the community. An acknowledgement of the celebratory nature of the event is the seudah, or festive communal meal, that follows and celebrates the performance of a mitzvah or commandment, which often takes the form of a party, though it need not – it can be as simple as a glass of wine and a loaf of bread (usually challah – a braided egg bread), over which blessings can be recited.
The ritual is an acknowledgment and celebration of the change in status; it does not cause it, and is not tied to the change in status, so the ritual of celebration can take place at any time following the date of the status change. It is possible for a person who did not have an opportunity to celebrate their change in status to do so at any time. Thus, one can prepare for the ritual and celebrate whenever the opportunity and desire arise.
As a note: before about 75 years ago, there were no Bat Mitzvah celebrations; it was just not done, so that many women did not have the opportunity to celebrate (a trivia note: the first acknowledged Bat Mitzvah celebration was that of Judith Kaplan Eisenstein in the context of a Reconstructionist community). In the last twenty-five or so years, there have been many adult women who have chosen to prepare for and to celebrate their status as B’not (daughters; plural of Bat) Mitzvah.
Similarly, men who for whatever reason did not celebrate their status have had the opportunity to do so at a later date, and persons who were delayed for various reasons (health, ability, learning issues, or other) have celebrated at a time later than their 13th birthday. So, it is quite possible and acceptable to celebrate a Bar Mitzvah (or Bat Mitzvah) at a time later than the 13th birthday of that person.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: Why don't Jewish mothers-to-be have baby showers, and does that mean it's not OK at all to give a mother-to-be a gift before the baby is born?
Why don't Jewish mothers-to-be have baby showers, and does that mean it's not OK at all to give a mother-to-be a gift before the baby is born?
This question seems to me to focus on derekh eretz, proper behavior in the Jewish context.
As Rabbi Shudnow explains in his response, this is an area where custom (minhag), not law, is the primary consideration. Customs have varied widely across the ages, and between locations, and Judaism has accepted and incorporated many of those in the prevailing culture into its own mix, so there is no single universal custom in regard to this matter.
For those who hold to the superstitions or customs related to concern with the possibility of ‘tempting fate’ or attracting the ‘evil eye’, there is a tendency to avoid behaviors which show expectation of good outcomes, and for these people, baby showers, announcing the sex or name of a child, or purchasing items for the baby in advance are all things that are risky, and should be shunned. This plays out in some who will not hold a baby-shower, or who will not allow gifts for the baby to brought into the house prior to the birth.
If you know someone holds this view, it would be inconsiderate and unkind, to cause them distress by giving them a gift or holding a baby shower in advance of the birth. Imagine the pain of ‘what if’ that would be caused to them if, G-d forbid, their pregnancy terminated or the child was stillborn or died shortly after birth.
Of course, there are many other people who do not share these views, will not follow these particular customs, and who would be happy to receive a gift or have a baby shower or announce the sex or name of their child in advance of the birth.
It comes down to knowing the specific people involved, and either knowing their customs or asking them what they prefer. As a matter of politeness and consideration, one should err on the side of caution and ascertain what would be comfortable for the family in question.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: If I develop a screenplay/script to a movie, and my friend took my script/screenplay and actually made a movie out of it, without my permission, and if he made money from the movie, what do Jewish laws say that could help me prove that I am the rightful owner of the script and should be paid by my friend?
As I understand the issue, there is a difference between Jewish and secular (US) law in this situation. In secular law, there is a concept called ‘intellectual property’ where one can own and protect the original idea or concept for something for a period of time. Other users are obliged to compensate the originator. Versions of this approach are seen in patents, copyrights, and trademarks.
This is not a feature of Jewish law, which requires (generally) that something must be tangible, in existence physically, or represent a specific ascertainable value, in order to be subject to ‘taking’. One can ‘take’ or appropriate real property, personal property (goods), money, and objects – but ideas do not fall into this category.
Jewish law holds that ideas are not owned; once expressed, they have a life of their own, and are available for use by anyone else. According to Jewish law, we do have a moral obligation to acknowledge the source of the idea, but the originator does not have exclusive rights to use it. These acknowledgments are seen in the form of rabbinic discussions in the Talmud, where the ideas are attributed by phrases such as: ‘in the name of Rabbi X’, ‘as taught by so-and-so’, ‘the words of Rabbi Y, as told by Rabbi Z’, and so forth. Where the originator of the idea is not known, we see such phrases used as: ‘as our teachers taught’, ‘as we learn from Torah’.
Because the content of the script/screenplay is an idea or concept, Jewish law would not see this as a taking. It would certainly agree that the taking of the physical object, the pages of the screenplay, could be taken, but the value of the paper would not be very great, and a Jewish court might award you the cost of a ream of paper.
The better argument to be made would be in the area that you had implicitly entered into a partnership agreement with your friend, and what you were seeking was not the value of the concept or idea, but your portion of the earnings acquired by the partnership, following your investment of time and effort to bring it about. This is, however, a completely different argument than the one you asked about.
Rabbi Joe Blair Question: My boss always makes me feel stupid, is rude, puts me down all the time, gets other people to tell me how to dress, and so on. Is this in keeping with Jewish law and custom? Are there Jewish rules about how a boss is to treat an employee?
A very similar question has been answered on Jewish Values Online already. You can find the answers given to that question by visiting: http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=72&cprg=/search.php%3Fsubcatid%3D7.
The short answer is that a boss (as does anyone) has an obligation under Jewish law not to abuse other people, employee or not.
Given what you say, I do have to ask if you are receiving this as it is meant. Is being abusive the intent the boss has, or is it more how you are experiencing it?
I am not sure about this situation from what you are describing, for example, because you say the boss asks others to advise you on your dress (do you know that the boss is asking others to speak to you?). Could it perhaps be that the boss is trying to gently convey that you are somehow not dressing appropriately for the workplace, without directly confronting you or embarrassing you? Could you be taking suggestions for how to do better in the workplace as personal criticism?
Before you characterize the behavior as abuse or intended to create bad feelings in you, you might want to consider if there is any truth in the kinds of things that you are hearing from the perspective of the boss. You may want to check with others in the workplace.
If you are firmly convinced that the boss is mistreating you, and there is no cause for it, then the answers to the earlier question referenced may help you to determine how to proceed from here.
I hope this works out well for you.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: What does the Torah say about personal injury?
What does the Torah say about personal injury?
(Note: One of my colleagues seems to have read this question as concerning what I would call self-inflicted injuries. I read it as dealing with Torts - injuries caused between persons, not necessarily physical, by wrongful acts, neglect, or default - as used in the American legal system, though the Jewish Halachah is often broader in certain aspects.)
The Torah speaks volumes about personal injuries (injuries between persons). From the discussion in the Torah about the damages owed if a pregnant woman is struck by accident and loses the fetus, to the setting of compensation plus punitive damages owed for wrongful taking, to the rules for division of property when no direct heir is left, to the responsibility of an agent to the owner in a failed bailment, to the obligation of an employer to their employees, to one who injures by speech; and to the obligation to the rightful owner by one who finds an object; all address issues of the rights and responsibilities of persons towards one another, and how an injury or a wrong can and should be redressed.
The concepts set forth in the Torah are further elucidated in the Talmud, and then in the Codes of Jewish law. The end result is that Jewish law is extremely well-developed and clear in this area. There is one order (one of six) of the Mishnah (Nezikin – Damages) on this, and the entire related order of the Talmud focuses on this concept.
This is such a broad realm that it is really impossible to summarize it and present it in any fairness. There are many good books, articles, and texts that deal with aspects of the topic, most readily available or searchable online.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: It seems that some people want to live Jewish lives, but not go through the process of converting? Is it OK for a person to practice Jewish religious rituals if he or she is not Jewish?
Your question has an answer that appears to me to change over time. In Biblical times we are told that there were ‘hangers on’, and ‘camp-followers’, and that when the Hebrews left Egypt, they went as a ‘mixed multitude’ – i.e., not all Hebrews. The Tanakh (Jewish bible) speaks of Gerei Toshav (persons who are not part of the people but who lived among them and followed the practices of the Hebrews/Israelites). Ruth, the Moabite, could be considered to be in this number (though it is generally accepted that her assertion to Naomi served as a full formal conversion).
We are told that when the exiles returned from Babylon, to minimize the problems that had arisen, Ezra and Nehemiah ordered that they had to separate out those who were not actually part of the Israelites and send them away. In most other times and places earlier in Jewish history, there were those who lived among the people, but were not actually ‘officially’ a part of them. So in ancient times, there were people who fit the description in your question; that practice was seemingly stopped in the 535 B.C.E. time frame.
So, as the saying goes, that was then, and this is now.
Today, in accordance with the ruling of Ezra and Nehemiah, it is the general understanding that if one wishes to become a Jew, they must complete a formal conversion process and be accepted. Anything else, or less, does not count; the standards are more formal, and the prerquisites are more specific.
The answer to your question seems to me to be that those who are not Jews should not undertake to practice, act, or perform as one. It is disrespectful and a usurpation and diminution of the rites and rituals which are not theirs and which they mimic (just as it would be for other faiths).
Because there are still those who wish to live in overall accordance with a Jewish outlook and follow some Jewish practices (but not follow a fully Jewish life), there is an alternative that is available. This is not a conversion to Judaism, but it also fulfills many of the ethical and moral teachings, without imposing all of the mitzvot (commandments) on the person who chooses this path. It is well defined, and readily accessible.
There is, in fact, an entire body of literature and instructions for these persons, and there are communities of them around the world. They are called B’nai Noah (children of Noah); they consist of those who follow the Noahide laws. These laws are described as the seven commandments which were applicable to Noah, and therefore to all human beings. These laws do not extend to or encompass the 613 mitzvot that make up Judaism. B'nai Noah are not Jews, and do not practice Judaism - they do, however, live in a manner that fulfills the common commandments that apply to all humans, including Jews.
The Noahide laws and the information are readily available online; for brevity I will not try to summarize them here. This is the appropriate path for a non-Jew who wishes to take on some part of Judaism as their practice and spiritual path, but not to become Jewish.
So, to answer your question specifically, I would say that one who is not a Jew should not undertake to practice as a Jew for good and sufficient reasons (and equally, should not call themselves a Jew); just as one who is not a member of another religion should not undertake to take on the practices of that religion. It is simply a matter of respect and truthfulness. They have an alterative available to them, or they may follow any other religion that also recognizes these seven universal laws, and live a good and fulfilling life in accordance with G-d's teaching.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: I've always been told that when naming a newborn Jewish child, it was improper to give him/her the same name as a living relative. What is the root of this tradition, and is using the first initial of a living relative's name also frowned upon?
Your question has been raised before on Jewish Values Online. The first time, it appears here in this form: Why cannot Ashkenazic Jews be named after a living person? Why are Sephardic Jews named after a living person? Is this law or just custom? http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=59&cprg=/search.php%3Fsearchtxt%3Dnaming%26what%3DA
The second time, it appears here, in this form: I know that it is not law, but custom, regarding Ashkenazim not naming babies after living relatives. However, I am very torn as I am about to have my 3rd (and last!) child. We have named our other 2 children's (English) middle names after deceased relatives. My grandmother is 85 and not doing well but we don't expect her to pass away anytime in the immediate future. I am her only grandchild and I would really like to honor her by naming our upcoming baby with her name as our baby's middle name; however I do not want to be doing something horribly wrong in other's eyes. Of course I do not wish my grandmother would die but the reality is she will at some point in the near future given her age while my child will likely live a long life and I think honoring my grandmother with her name as my child's middle name would be a special way to honor her. What do you think? My husband is fine with it but my in-laws are not sure. I am a convert (Conservative) so my family doesn't really have much input (however my grandmother is Jewish). Thank you!
Please take a look at these posted answers.
If you feel that your question is still not answered to your satisfaction, please re-submit it as a more specific question. Thank you!
Administrator
[Please note: this will be the only answer provided to this question; it will not have three answers appearing.]
Question: Why do younger Jewish generations today pronounce many Hebrew words with a “t” sound at the end while older Jews often use an “s” sound?
Your question is more about history and politics than about language or pronunciation within Judaism, but to answer requires some explanation of groups and history. To reply briefly is to do damage to the answer, but here goes:
Within Judaism today, there is a division among Jews, depending in part on where their ancestors’ travels took them.
Broadly speaking, those Jews who remained in the areas conquered and controlled by Muslims in the period from 600 to 1400 C.E., including parts of the middle-, near-, and far-east, segments of Africa, part of Europe, and in particular those Jews who had to flee from the effects of the Inquisition (an institution of the Catholic Church, which began in Spain in 1492, and spread to Portugal and the ‘new world’), make up the Sephardi (Sephardic) Jewish population.
Those who lived under Christian controlled rule, who had established roots in Europe, and particularly what was once called Gall (parts of France, Germany, Italy, Spain), make up the Ashkenazi (Ashkenazic) Jewish population.
[The picture is far more complex than this; there were other groups, at various times and places, but this is enough to respond to your question.]
History has led to the situation that the two groups exist, but not in anything like equal numbers. The Ashkenazi Jews far outnumber the Sephardi Jews today (due to various pogroms, war, population growth, the Shoah/Holocaust, and other factors. These two groups developed slightly different dialects of Hebrew over time, with slightly different pronunciation. The Sephardic style was to soften some of the differences in letter and vowels, so that some Hebrew letters, such as the ‘tav’ and ‘sav’ grew to be pronounced the same way, as did some of the vowel sounds.
After the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, which began with many more of the Ashkenazi Jews, many of the Sephardi Jews were forced to flee with only what they had on their backs out of the Arab and Muslim controlled lands, and wound up as refugees in Israel. They were absorbed by the State of Israel, and became citizens. The number of these persons was similar to (if not actually significantly greater than the number of Arab/Muslim persons who fled the area of Israel at the urging of the Mufti of Jerusalem and others who intended to destroy the fledgling state).
By the way, those Arabs and Muslims who fled from the land of Israel were generally not permitted to integrate into the surrounding nations; they were placed in refugee camps, where many of them remain today; they are now called the Palestinians.
As a way of integrating and welcoming the refugees from the Muslim lands, the State of Israel decided to institute the practice of teaching Sephardi pronunciation as the official Hebrew spoken in Israel. Most Hebrew speakers today use this pronunciation. There is a still-sizeable number of Ashkenazi Jews who have chosen to remain with that pronunciation; in particular, the Orthodox (and as some would call them, the ultra-Orthodox) have chosen to hold to the Ashkenazi pronunciation.
So those who speak in the Sephardi pronunciation use the ‘t’ sound, while those who speak in the Ashkenazi pronunciation use the ‘s’ sound. Most of those Jews in America who are not Orthodox, and who were born after the State of Israel was founded, tend to use the Sephardi pronunciation, but many older Jews were taught the Ashkenazi pronunciation. That explains the difference by age.
I recommend that you do some research to fill in the many details that are necessarily left out of this answer.
Rabbi Joe Blair
[Administrator’s Note: Because this is not a question about values, ethics, morals, or right behavior, this will be the only answer provided to this question; it will not have three answers appearing.]
Question: Is it preferred for an intermarried family, in which there is a celebration of both Jewish and Christian traditions, both to light a Chanukah menorah and to decorate a Christmas tree in their home, or should they just have the Christmas tree? In particular, what is preferred when the circumstances involve the teaching of their children about Jewish tradition? What is best way for them to proceed?
This is not a question that is designed to make a rabbi happy. :-(
This is a hot-button issue for me.
You pose a no-win situation.
I am not speaking to the issue of interfaith marriage, but the situation as you describe it.
The factors that go into this issue, to my mind, are these.
First, it is inappropriate for a Jew to practice any other religion (just as it is inappropriate for a faithful and believing Christian to practice another religion, or a Muslim to practice another religion, or …. Etc.). The Jewish spouse in this scenario is already on shaky ground, before we even start to look at the details.
Second, this is presumably being done ‘for’ the children. In reality, I believe, it is a completely selfish and egocentric response on the part of one or both parents, who would seem to be unwilling or unable to act as adults and parents, and to make the hard choice of what they will do and teach, so they can offer their children something substantive to help support them later in life. As one of my colleagues (Rabbi Sue Levi) has often said, children are either apples or oranges; they are never fruit salad. All that children can gain from the approach of ‘both’ is to be confused by, distant, disaffected, and alienated from both religions.
Third, choices such as religion are not possible until a child is ready and able to make a meaningful decision. That does not happen until sometime in the mid- to late-teen years for most children. Younger children developmentally do not deal with ‘gray’ areas well: the world is pretty much black and white, right and wrong, this or that, to them. To give them ‘both’ is to provide neither, and worse, it sets them up as seeing that making a choice for one or the other religion is actually about choosing one parent over the other. That is a completely unacceptable place to put a child – and all the more so when it is done because a parent or couple refuse to or can’t make a decision for themselves, and therefore stick their child with the responsibility to choose.
In the instances where a couple has come to me asking about the possibility of an interfaith wedding, and it has become clear in our conversation that they have not decided on a religion in which to raise their children, I have said to them that I would far prefer that they go have a Church wedding and raise the children in that faith, than to subject them to the generally unworkable and therefore damaging fraud of ‘both’. I also have said to them that I would be even happier if they decided to raise their children as Jews, and have only one religion practiced in the home.
I realize that this is not likely a popular view, nor does it seem ‘warm and welcoming’, but I hold the interests of the potential children to be of higher value than the comfort of the couple. The children, after all, have no choice in the situation into which they are brought. If the couple are unable to decide for themselves when it affects no one but the two of them, how can they possibly justify putting children in the same position without guidance?
So the bottom line is that I would have to inform this couple that in my considered opinion they are acting contrary to the best interests of the children, and that this is not an approach that they should continue to follow. It would be far better if they wish to choose only one religion to practice and teach the children. If they choose Christianity, then they must do so fully and with an open heart. Similarly, if they choose Judaism, it must be fully and with an open heart. Of course, I would personally prefer to see them choose Judiasm, but either way, they must choose for the sake of the children.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: While I believe that as Americans, it is our civic duty to participate in the electoral process, is there also a specific Jewish obligation to vote?
If you have read the answers of my two colleagues, you will find that they have each laid out excellent responses. The essential feature of both is that they find no specific Jewish legal obligation (under Halachah) requiring one to vote. They each give some good support to the reason one might feel such an obligation as a civic duty, but they do not offer a Halachic reason. It seems to me that they are correct, because I can neither think of nor find any Halachic obligation that would direct one to vote in civic elections. Given the question as asked, the answer appears to be ‘no’, and in fact, just the opposite seems to be the more likely response. We find in Pirke Avot (BT Nezikin/Damages, Tractate Abot, often called the Ethics of the Fathers) there are some directions to avoid being engaged with the government and to seek to avoid being a public servant, if possible – so there is certainly not much support there for an obligation to engage in civic responsibility! No other sources of support in traditional texts come to mind.
I would argue, however, that we might derive such an obligation as a result of reasoning from other Halachic applications. In specific, here is an initial stab at such an argument.
My Orthodox colleague, Rabbi Rothstein, quoting Rabbi Soloveitchik (of blessed memory), has presented the position that there is an obligation to vote on the basis of preserving the health and wellbeing of the Jewish community in both specific and general matters of policy. I agree that this is an important reason to encourage Jews to vote, but I don’t view this as a particularly Halachic approach.
He next indicates that he sees an obligation to vote in order to protect the reputation of the Jewish community as an active and engaged voting block, thereby offering some leverage for bargaining and as a form of persuasive influence. This holds truly only if the majority of Jews in a particular electorate vote for the same candidate or party; something that is not assured today, and seems to be heading towards even less cohesion, if the published analyses are correct. In any case, once again, I don’t view this as a Halachic matter.
Further, Rabbi Rothstein posits that there is an obligation to live up to the expectations of acting as a ‘good citizen’ as a way of expressing appreciation for the position that Jews enjoy in this nation. I certainly agree that Jews have enjoyed a far better position and much greater success in the United States than many other locations in the world, and we should express our appreciation, but it does not strike me that voting is a way to do so. Voting seems to me to be the exercise of a right and a privilege, as well as an expression of civic engagement and participation; I do not feel it is a way to say ‘thank you.’
Finally, he mentions that there may be some obligation under the principle in Jewish law that dina de malchuta dina (the law of the land is the law – when Jews live in a non-Jewish nation, they are obliged to follow the laws of that nation, as long as these laws do not violate Halachah). This last seems a bit of a stretch, to me, as it is not a legal requirement that an American citizen vote (we are given the privilege and right, but not obliged to do so), so this does not strike me as an instance that this principle would be relevant.
Rabbi Allen, my Conservative colleague, presents the teaching of Jeremiah concerning living in non-Jewish cities (peoples/states/nations), and enjoining Jews to seek the peace of the city, which Rabbi Allen explains as including participating in civic life. Rabbi Allen extends this obligation to the act of voting as an expression of seeking the peace of the city. I find myself agreeing with the concept he sets forth, but not feeling that this is a specific enough basis of support to justify the claim to an existence of a Halachic obligation to vote.
To this point, I am not convinced that I could see an obligation to vote as a matter of Jewish law. If there is to be such a Halachic obligation, I think it would have to arise from a different source than has been discussed so far.
One possible source of such a holding might be seen in the obligations that Jews have under the Halachic principle of Tikkun Olam (repairing the world), as it is widely understood. It would seem to me that we could legitimately argue that if we feel that things are not as good as they should/could be, and we may bring about changes that will improve the situation by voting, we would be obliged under this principle to act by casting our vote. Since things can ALWAYS be better, the obligation to vote would be perennial, arising in every election at every civic and governmental level.
I make no claims that this analysis is complete, or that it creates the obligation to vote under Jewish law; it is simply an approach to reasoning that may support such an obligation. The current position remains that there is no Halachic obligation to vote in civic elections.
Submitted by Rabbi Joseph “Rabbi Joe” Blair
Question: My grandfather celebrated a second bar mitzvah. Can you explain the reason behind his doing so and if this is a ceremony expected of all Jews of a certain age?
Thank you for writing to Jewish Values Online to ask a question.
What your grandfather did is actually a lovely minhag/custom, and allows another opportunity for celebration – there can never be too many causes for celebration! I encourage as many people to take this on as possible, and I enjoy working with them to prepare. This practice celebrates their life, gives them a chance to engage in Torah study, encourages others in the congregation to see this as a meaningful way to mark a significant milestone in life, and brings the community together for a joyous celebration. This custom is based on the reading of Psalm 90:10, which tells us that 70 years is the expected lifespan of most humans, though we may reach 80 if granted special vigor. This is not so far from what statistics tell us about life expectancy today. Given this expectation, one can imagine that after they reach age 70 it is as if they had been granted a new start, so that when they arrive at the age of 83, it is equivalent to reaching the age of Bar (or Bat) Mitzvah in that ‘second life’ – a wonderful reason to celebrate by having a second Bar (or Bat) Mitzvah!
Question: Can a Jew be buried with a tattoo or body piercing? How has this changed over time, if it has, and what is the reason behind the prohibition?
Thank you for writing to Jewish Values Online to ask your question.
A related question was asked earlier, and answers your question in part. I suggest you take a visit to this answer on the JVO site for responses from three rabbis that reply concerning tatoos:
I would say that the Jewish view on Tatoos has not changed significantly with time, unless perhaps there is less of a shock factor involved in general. Most Jews ‘know’ that tattoos are forbidden, and it is not common that Jews hve them. It is not seen as a positive thing to have one, and it is still true that people accept those with tattoos as Jews ‘despite’ the tattoos. There may be some easing of this attitude of late among young people, but it is likely that this is a fad that will die out again.
As for the question of piercings, it is less clear as I understand it. Piercings are not classified in the same category as tattoos, and are not explicitly forbidden. Historically, and in the Tanakh, piercings were mentioned as worn by the Hebrews (the source of the gold for the golden calf was the earrings they wore); there is mention of earrings and nose rings in relation to adornment of women; and slaves that did not wish to be freed at the end of their term of service in the Shemitah (seventh) or Yovel (Jubilee – 50th) years were to receive a ‘piercing’ of their ear using an awl to mark them as in that status.
Nonetheless, the practice of piercings is frowned upon because it is seen (other than ear and nose rings) not as an adornment and enhancement of the human body, but as a desecration of it and of the form of the body which is made ‘in the image’ of G-d. Thus, piercings beyond the somewhat accepted range of one (or perhaps two on each side) pair of earrings, are seen as defacement and desecration by most in the Jewish world, and are not accepted. Similarly to the case with tattoos, if one has piercings, it will not change their status as a Jew, though it most likely will change how others will see and treat them. I doubt that there would be any time that a person with piercings would be denied a Jewish burial. I would point out that the piercings themselves would likely be removed from the body as part of the process that a Chevrah Kadishah (Holy ‘burial’ Society) would perform in preparing the body for burial.
In short, tattoos are taboo, and piercings are problematic. J
Question: Shalom. How do you in Judaism 'Honor your Father and Mother' when you disagree, argue, debate, and disagree some more, and they don't respect you? Isn't it better to agree to disagree and stay distant, than to be in their presence and be disrespectful? Like David to Saul? Jeroboam to Solomon? [sic]
Thank you for writing to Jewish Values Online. It is precisely BECAUSE there are inherent frictions in the interactions of parents and children (after a certain age) that the fifth of the ten sayings (ten commandments) is so explicit. “You shall honor your father and mother, that your days may be long upon the land that the Lord, your God has given you.” (Shemot/Ex. 20:12) Nowhere is it obligatory that you like, or even love your parents, but you are commanded to honor them. That may mean listening to things you don’t want to hear, or doing (or refraining from) things you would prefer not to do; these are perhaps what you experience as a lack of respect towards you. It is possible that you characterize it correctly as a lack of respect for you, but on the face of it, it is more probable that this is your emotional reaction to not liking what you are hearing or being asked to do, rather than a lack of respect or any inappropriate action on the part of your parents. The respect (or honor) in Judaism is demanded not from parents to children, but in the other direction. Not to imply that parents can treat children with a lack of respect, or badly, but the standard is significantly different. Given this, your actions when you ‘disagree, argue, debate, and disagree some more’ are a failure on your part to honor your parents. Equally, to avoid them, to distance yourself from them, to fail to visit, call, or spend time with them, to refuse to do as they ask, or to speak ill of them, is a failure on your part to honor them. It sounds as if you need to re-evaluate your attitudes and behaviors, learn to control your emotional responses, and work on improving your relationship with your parents. Good luck to you. P.S. Your examples don't work. David was always respectful to Saul (who was not his parent, in fact, but his king), and we have no reason to think Jeroboam was not respectful to Solomon - he was just a terrible ruler and disrespectful to G-d. Question: Can one be Jewish and not believe in God?
I found that this same question has already been answered on the website by four of my colleagues. Rabbis Rosenberg, Rothstein, Schwab, and Wolpoe have each answered this question. Rabbi Wolpoe’s answer is attached to this question, while the other three responses appear on the site, accessible at the following URL: http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=48&cprg=/search.php%3Fsubcatid%3D45 Rather than repeat what they have said, allow me to simply point at their responses, and urge you to read them. Question: If a child is called to the Torah as a Bar Mitzvah, if the father has passed away, and a step father is taking the parental duties, how should the child be called to the torah by name, as ben birthfather or stepfather's name? is it possible to call him up as both to respect both men
If a child is called to the Torah as a Bar Mitzvah, if the father has passed away, and a step father is taking the parental duties, how should the child be called to the torah by name, as ben birthfather or stepfather's name? is it possible to call him up as both to respect both men?
Thank you for writing to Jewish Values Online. I understand your question as one concerning the proper Jewish etiquette to demonstrate respect for these two important men in the life of this young man. The answer seems to me to be fairly clear. The Hebrew name that was given to the young man at birth is his name – Ploni ben Birthfather is the correct form (though the name of the mother is sometimes added). That would include the patronymic, i.e., the name of the man who fathered him (unless there were very unusual circumstances). This has nothing to do with respecting, or disrespecting the stepfather; it is simply a fact that this name is how that young man is called. The only exception to this I could imagine would be in the event that the young man at a time of illness wished to adopt an addition to his name (a custom among some Jews, based on a somewhat superstitious view, probably dating to medieval times, that changing one’s name might confuse the angel of death and preserve one’s life), and took the stepfather’s name as a part of his own. In that case, as an example, for a young man named Moses whose birth father was Saul, and whose stepfather was Hayim, it might be that rather than remaining Moshe ben Shaul, which would have been his given name, he might take on the name Moshe Chayim ben Shaul. The patronymic would not change, but he might add the stepfather’s name as part of his own, as a middle name, if you will. Otherwise, the given name is the name of the person, and it does not change with events or circumstances. Question: I was raised to believe that as Jews, we do not believe in a "life after death"..that we live on through our children. I always wondered if this was truly a Jewish belief. Does the Jewish religion think we have a "soul", an afterlife?
Although this is not directly a question of Jewish morals or ethics, it does touch on Jewish values and proper behavior, at least in some ways.
Judaism is not monolithic – i.e., there is no single authority or answer for everything that all Jews follow (putting aside G-d for this discussion). In some areas, this actually means there is NO particular answer that exists and is accepted in Judaism. One of the principles that I see as a key to living a Jewish life is the ability to live and function with uncertainty. The area of eschatology (‘life’ following death) is precisely one of these topics with no answer.
First then, Judaism does not answer about the idea of an afterlife. The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) does not speak to it, other than brief mentions in a few visions in the Nevi’im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings), and the one story of Saul calling on the ‘shade’ of Samuel as an object lesson for what not to do. These instances do not provide strong or solid proof of any particular view; they are often cited and used to argue specific ideas, but they do not really support any of them adequately to conclude that there was such a view that was widespread.
Second, yes, Judaism contains a concept that we have a ‘soul’. It is not a single entity, however, but is described as the fusion of three components. Nefesh (the physically-based component of that individual that resides in the body), Neshamah (the divine breath of life inspired/respired into the person by G-d), and Ruach (the wind/spirit that binds the other two together and allows one to live). A common (but not universal) understanding is that the Neshamah is eternal (just as G-d is eternal), but there is not necessarily the same idea concerning the other two components.
Because there is no Jewish dogma and no theological position that is required to be held by Jews, Jews have been free to view this question and to answer it for themselves in any way that they find comforting. That means that Judaism has absorbed a vast array of different ideas from the surrounding cultures and peoples among whom Jews have lived over the ages, and there is a very wide range of responses that are included in the totality of the Jewish population. These responses run the full gamut from the view that there is nothing following death [which seems to be more or less what you were raised with], to one’s soul returns to the divine source but the individual ceases (eternality of the Neshamah), to a variety of recycling (the soul – some or all of the components - returns to live another life in this world to allow it to complete its’ tasks and perfect itself), to the soul (some or all) is reunited with God and remains there, to some variety of belief that the soul remains in a state of reward (perhaps something like heaven), to the concept of a sort of purgatory (Gei Hinnom) where the soul was purged of its’ faults for a period of time, to the concept of the sould going to She’ol (the place of questions – and no answers), to whatever other views may exist. The full range is explored in a number of books; one that I recall as being a good and readable overview is by Simcha Paull Rafael.
Your understanding that we live on through our children is also an idea that exists, along with the variant that we live on through our good deeds, or through the memory of us in others. This is why the common phrase of comfort to a Jewish mourner is ‘may your loved one’s memory be for a blessing.’
Now we come to the component of this question that affects the Jewish idea of proper behavior and values. Because we do not know, we cannot rely on an afterlife as the motivation or reason to act properly, in accordance with Jewish values. Instead, Judaism is concerned with here and now, what we do in this life, how we act and treat others, what we choose to do or not, what kind of life and what sort of person we will be/are. We are not motivated by some distant reward, nor do we act/refrain out of fear of some distant punishment. Doing what is right – that which is righteous, good, proper, moral, ethical, upright, and godly – is its’ own reward, and the opposite is its’ own punishment, here and now, in this world and this life. We do not look to some time in future or after death to be rewarded or punished. This sets Judaism apart from many other religions which rely on some future reckoning as the motivation for the behaviors sought.
I suspect that this last point is the source of what you were taught by your family; that if you are a proper, upright person – a mentsch, as they say – you would live on through your children, your deeds, and the memory of your life as an example.
I hope that this is helpful.
Question: May a Jew that went through a Reform Conversion move to Israel under the law of return?
Thank you for writing to Jewish Values Online. I believe that you are really asking two (or more) separate questions.
1. Legally, will a person who underwent a Reform conversion outside of Israel be allowed to move to Israel and be accepted as a citizen under the ‘law of return’?
2. Religiously, will a person who underwent a Reform conversion process be recognized and accepted as Jewish for all purposes in Israel?
I begin with a very strong caveat: I am by no means offering you any legal advice, and the outcomes with regard to legal matters can change drastically, depending on minute details of the facts in a given instance, so anything I say here is speculative at best, and cannot be taken as authoritative or in any way as something you can count on.
Legally, the Israeli Supreme Court has determined that a conversion performed outside of Israel by a recognized authority (a recognized and ordained rabbi) in a given community (Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, etc.) will (generally) be accepted for the purpose of conferring the status of a citizen of Israel on the person who underwent the conversion and is seeking to make Aliyah, in accordance with the provisions of the ‘law of return’. Of course, there are conditions that attach to this, but in general, this is the holding. So yes, a person who undergoes a Reform conversion can make Aliyah and be a citizen of Israel.
Religiously, it is not so clear. [I am offering no judgement or personal comments here about whether this is a good or bad situation: I am simply trying to explain what is likely in the scenario you ask about.] In Israel, the determination of matters of personal status (whether one is Jewish, whether one may marry a particular person, etc.) are left to the determination of the Orthodox Rabbanut. Since in general the Israeli Orthodox Rabbinate does not recognize or accept the authority of any non-Orthodox rabbi (Reform, Conservative, Renewal, Reconstructionist, etc.), and often do not accept conversions (Orthodox or not) done outside of Israel, they would not accept a Reform conversion as valid, and usually will not certify the person as Jewish. This means that a person who converts may not be accepted as Jewish for some or all purposes in Israel.
This can lead to the anomalous situation of a convert to Judaism who is practicing and observing Jewish laws and following a fully Jewish lifestyle, living as a citizen in Israel, perhaps serving in the IDF, but who is not considered Jewish for religious purposes.
The Reform movement supports the legal determination of the Israeli Supreme Court in this matter, and is seeking to have the rabbinic actions of its’ movement’s rabbis accepted as valid for all purposes, including religious determinations.
The Israel Religious Action Center (IRAC), the Israeli arm of the Reform movement’s political and social action organization, and the Association of Reform Zionists in America (ARZA), the Reform Movement’s Israel-oriented arm, have been pushing for many years for Jewish religious pluralism in Isreal, and for equal status and rights for Progressive/Liberal (Reform, Reconstructionist, & Conservative) rabbis, congregations and schools, in Israel. You can readily find information online; one of the topics that keys in to this matter is the fairly widespread news concerning the ‘Conversion Bill’ proposed by Minister of Knesset Rotem in recent months, now tabled for a time due to protests from world Jewry.
If you are seriously considering Aliyah following a conversion, I strongly urge you to contact the IRAC for information on the current legal situation, as well as assistance in the process. Nefesh B’Nefesh is another organization that can be helpful for those in this situation.
I hope that this has proven helpful.
Question: Is masturbation a 'sin' according to Jewish law?
I am not married, and find it very hard not to engage in this behavior. How would you suggest a single man abstain from masturbating, if it is not permitted?
First, from my limited study of ‘normal’ psychology, and more specifically, of human sexuality, I understand that masturbation is a common, natural, and ‘normal’ activity for most human beings, starting at an early age; it becomes a problem when it is excessive, displaces other normal sexual outlets that may be available, or becomes abusive, compulsive, uncontrollable, or self-destructive. From this perspective, you, as an unmarried healthy male would very likely experience the urge to engage in this form of self-gratification – there is no surprise in that being the case. Second, Judaism does not see sex as a ‘dirty’ or disgusting subject. Sex is a normal part of life, and when engaged in properly, in the correct setting with the appropriate partner, and with the proper kavanah, it is one of the sublime gifts G-d has provided to humanity, both for procreation and as an expression of deep and meaningful caring, communication, and sharing. So there is nothing about sex, including masturbation as a form of sex, that is forbidden in Judaism. At the same time, I want to note that the act of masturbation is not approved fully in Judaism; by definition it violates the prohibition on ‘spilling seed’ that exists in historical and traditional Judaism. This is not often a topic of concern within the Reform ambit, so I will leave discussion of it to my colleagues in other movements. Suffice it to say that there are Jews for whom this aspect of the action will be troublesome; the sexual aspect is not the difficulty. The term ‘sin’ as you have used it is perhaps misleading. In Judaism, we describe behaviors such as this (and most particularly at Yom Kippur – the day of atonement) as ‘missing the mark’, failing to live up to our highest ideals and self-aspirations. There is no assumption in Judaism that we always succeed in reaching our aspirational goals, but it is up to us to do our best to strive for them, and constantly to try to improve on how close we approach them over time. In this view, masturbation is not a ‘sin’ as that is understood, but rather an action that is not reflective of the highest ideals we may hold. It does not render the person engaging in this action ‘unclean’, ‘tainted’, or ‘unfit’ in any way, and should not lead to any shaming, shunning, or self-abnegation. From a Reform perspective, it is not prohibited, ‘sinful’, or ‘dirty,’ and would be seen as a normal, healthy, and even acceptable behavior in which an unmarried person might engage in private. If you wish to try to avoid engaging in this action, there is no sure-fire way I can offer, but some suggestions are to avoid materials and situations (movies, magazines, books, suggestive locations, sexually stimulating topics of conversation, etc.) that tend to prompt you to think in terms of this behavior; find things that you enjoy and value to do and keep yourself busy and productive; treat yourself well by eating healthy foods, exercising regularly, and avoiding alcohol (and, it goes without saying, drugs). When the urge arises (and it almost certainly will), do your best to hold off; the more you can prevent yourself from engaging in the behavior, the easier the process is likely to become. Eventually, this will likely resolve itself as you come to a point in your life where you will meet an appropriate mate. Good luck and much success to you. Question: What are your views on persons asserting Crypto Jewish heritage in the American SouthWest who want to claim Jewish status?
Thank you for writing to Jewish Values Online.
First, I would point out that you are not really asking my view on persons who make this assertion, but rather the Jewish view (Reform in this case) concerning such claims. In fact, I have had the pleasure of working with some people who asserted exactly this. I am proud that I was able to assist some of them, and those person are now fully Jewish and living a meaningful Jewish life.
To start, though, we had best define some terms.
A crypto-Jew is someone whose Jewish heritage and background is hidden from others.
The most widely understood and asserted reason for such a situation is that the so-identified person descends from past generations of Jews that lived in Spain, usually dating back to the late 1400’s, or even the early 1500’s.
Recall that under Ferdinand and Isabella, the Catholic Church was heavily influential at that time in that place. To be Jewish and to remain in Spain was to risk penalties, even including death. All Jews (in theory) were expelled from Spain in 1492 by decree. Any Jew who remained was forced to convert to Catholicism or be subject to execution.
In what seems to my thinking a massively paranoid pattern, it came to be assumed within the Church that some, even many or most, of the Jews that converted and remained in Spain did so for convenience, and not out of conviction. This speculation was the spark that ignited the Inquisition, a horrible event in history which had negative effects for hundreds of years.
The purpose of the Inquisition was to ferret out and punish anyone who might have been still practicing Judaism (or any other religion) in secret, though claiming to be Catholic. Its’ methods were secret accusations, extra-judicial torture, jailing for unlimited time, and no appeals. Under such a system, with sufficient ‘examination’, everyone accused eventually broke and confessed guilt. The reward for confession was the release of death, often in terrible ways.
The Inquisition did not remain in Europe alone: it made its’ way to the New World as well. As a result, many of the new Christians who fled to the New World had to continue to live in fear of the Inquisitors. Some of them probably were secretly practicing Judaism, at least in part, but no one can say how many. It became a habit of survival to hide and be secretive, to avoid scrutiny, and to stay in the background, even if you had nothing about which you were guilty.
Numerous persons who came to settle the New World arrived in the American Southwest, under Spanish control. It is known that some number of them likely were crypto-Jews; but the actual number is not clear. These new Christians were referred to in many ways. The unpleasant slang was to call them Marranos – pigs, under the assumption that they were Jews who were not faithful to the Church. Less offensive was the term Conversos (converts).
There are many literary stories, as well as a body of literature in sociological and anthropological materials accumulated of late, describing how some families have certain customs that cannot be readily explained; the claim is that the only reason for such customs is that the family must be crypto-Jews. One example is a story telling how the grandmother would go down into the cellar each Friday night and light (ostensibly Shabbat) candles there, where no one outside the home could possibly observe them, waiting until they burned out before leaving; this custom was passed down from generation to generation, so that it continues today, but no one has any idea why. Another such example is that the family somehow never consumes any pork products, though they prepare chicken, lamb, or beef as if it were pork, so from outside of the home it appears that the family eats similarly to their neighbors. Again, this action was continued, unexplained, from generation to generation, so that the family members had no idea why, but continued it as custom.
These types of situations are what are being described as defining crypto-Jews. It is asserted that only those who were secretly Jewish would have continued such customs in stealth and secret for generations.
The problem with this explanation is that it is one possible reason, but it is not the only possible reason, so the assertion of crypto-Judaism is not the only logical conclusion. Further complicating the matter is that there are issues of social status that attach to origin; coming from Spain, rather than descending from the native American population, is considered more prestigious by some, for example, which could influence the stories handed down from one generation to the next.
To answer your question; if one can prove Jewish heritage directly, one can make a claim to be part of the Jewish people. The general claim of crypto-Judaism is most often insufficient by itself to provide proof to support such a claim; though it can be indicative, and may be helpful and supportive to a claim that has other evidence to further it. For this reason, when I have been approached by persons who wish to assert Jewish heritage and choose to make a claim to being Jewish, I have in almost every instance insisted that they eliminate any doubts and undergo a standard conversion process, as any other convert would. This closes off any questions and answers any doubts.
I hope that this is helpful.
Question: One of my close friends is in a relationship, but I'm pretty sure his girlfriend is cheating on him. Am I obligated to confront her? Should I tell him what I think is going on? I don't think I can just leave this alone.
Thank you for writing to Jewish Values Online.
This is indeed a delicate issue. People’s feelings and relationships are at stake, and you cannot act without great care and attention to all the factors. The principles at stake here fall under the general categories of Lashon HaRa (evil tongue - speaking ill of someone), Tochecha (reproof or correction of someone’s faults), and Shemirah (guarding or protecting someone from harm). The concepts are easy; it is the delicate balance that is required to apply them correctly that is so difficult. > Question: What are the differences (main ones) between Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, and Messianics?
Your question makes me think of the old Sesame Street show song, "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong. Can you say which one is not like the others, before I finish my song?" And just as the answer was always obvious on the show, it is here as well.
Simply put, Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, (and Reconstructionist, Renewal, and multiple other groups) are Jewish, accepted within the bounds of Judaism, and include only those who do not worship Jesus and are not Christians.
Messianics ("Jews for Jesus," so-called "Completed Jews", and others with various names) are simply not Jewish, are not accepted as Jews and never will be. They are Christians who worship Jesus.
The two faiths are completely incompatible; one cannot hold both and be faithful to either.
Anyone claiming otherwise is either completely deluded themself, or attempting to deceive others.
{Administrator's Note: Since this is not a matter of conjecture or opinion, but is universally accepted in the Jewish world, and this is not an ethical, moral, values, or proper behavior subject, this is the only response this question (or any like it) will receive. No further questions regarding this topic will appear on the Jewish Values Online website.]
Question: When is the child of a mixed marriage, in which the mother is not Jewish, considered Jewish?
Thank you for writing to Jewish Values Online.
Your question, or ones very similar to it, have already been responded to on this website.
If you click on the Category Miscellaneous Topics, and select Subcategory Status Issues, you will find four pertinent responses.
I suggest you view the answers provided in those cases.
Direct links to the questions referenced are:
If you still feel you have a question after reading these responses, please submit a question again, with more specifics.
Thank you.
Question: Were there actually 2 stone tablets for the 10 commandments? If so, why? YHWH [sic] could just as easily get all of them on just one tablet, right?
Thank you for writing to Jewish Values Online.
I take it that you wish an answer to your question using a quite literal reading of the text. That is not my usual approach, but I will try to do so in my answer.
As you may recall, the Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures, or Jewish Bible) in Shemot (Exodus) describes in full detail how the ten sayings (not actually ten commandments, as the first two are not things one may undertake directly) were inscibed on the two tablets, five and five. This was true both for the first set of tablets which Moses smashed on seeing the people engaged in the tragic 'sin' of the golden calf, and for the second set of tablets which Moses carved and brought back to the people. So yes, the text tells us clearly that there were two sets, each of two tablets, each tablet having five statements carved or etched on it.
As for why, in the first instance it is what G-d did. What right have I (or anyone) to question G-d's motives? Yet, the rabbis did just that, seeking an explanation in the text of the sayings themselves. What they found was that the sayings divide nicely into the positive and negative instructions, with five positive instructions on the first tablet, and five negative instructions on the second. We may speculate that this is the reason that G-d used two tablets, rather than one - but we will never really know.
I hope that this response is helpful in some way.
I have to point out that yours is not a question or topic that focuses on Jewish values, mores, ethics, or proper behavior, and so is not really suited to the purpose of this web site. There are many other Jewish resources and web sites that answer more general questions; for this type of information I suggest that you seek them out. Please return here to ask your questions about Jewish values, moral and ethical issues, and proper behavior.
Shalom,
[Administrator]
Question: How many types of Judaism are there?
Thank you for writing to Jewish Values Online. I am afraid that I find your question confusing. It would all depend on to whom you addressed your question, and in what context.
At one level, there is only one kind of Judaism. One either is a Jew or is not.
At a different level, there are multiple varieties of how Judaism is practiced. In this, one might talk about Conservative, Orthodox, Reform, Reconstructioninst, Renewal, Habad/Lubavitch, Satmar, and other groupings or segments of the Jewish world.
At yet another level, one could discuss Secular, Modern, Religious, Observant, Ethnic, Cultural, Social, Ethical, Artistic, Literary, and still more types of Jews and Judaisms in the world.
And of course there are Traditional, Progressive, Liberal, and Feminist Judaisms.
Most confusing of all is that all of these can exist in almost any combination and permutation, so one could meet a person that said that he/she was a Modern Reconstructionist Traditional Religious Observant Cultural Social Feminist and Ethnic Jew; to pick just one example.
So the answer is either one, multiple, or many, depending on what you mean.
If you would like to clarify and re-submit your question with more details, we can try to answer what it is you are specifically asking. Alternatively, you might find that there are many other sources on the web that already try to address the question you mean to ask.
[Administrator]
Question: My question concerns the matter of mixing meat and dairy which I understand. How does this include poultry which does not produce milk to feed its young
My question concerns the matter of mixing meat and dairy which I understand. How does this include poultry which does not produce milk to feed its young.
Thank you for writing to Jewish Values Online.
There have been two very similar questions posted on the site, and I recommend you read the responses to these questions for the answers to your quesitons.
You will find them under the Category Miscellaneous, below Subcategory Beliefs & Practices.
Here are direct links.
These two topics address why one may not mix meat and milk, and why chicken/poultry is treated as meat even though it does not produce milk.
If you find you still have questions after reading these items, please feel free to submit another specific question.
I hope that this is helpful.
[Administrator]
Question: Why are some people so outraged by the sight of a woman holding a Torah? Aren’t we all created in the image of G-d?
Thank you for submitting your question.
This question is really not directed to a Reform concern: The Reform movement believes in and practices gender equality in worship and ritual matters (as I think do the Reconstructionist, Renewal, and to a large degree, Conservative movements). In all of these groupings women participate fully in worship rituals (quite often as the majority of those involved); it is not a matter for comment or concern. This issue is really only a challenge to certain persons in the more traditionally restricted segments of the Jewish world.
The furor is not about violating the principle of the image of G-d, but rather about the gender of the person carrying the Torah. Consequently, I think that your question is slightly off the mark as it is phrased. It is not the sight of a woman holding a Torah that enrages these people, but the challenge that image poses to their limited and rigid view of the world and Judaism. Those who are offended by it are upset, I believe, because it violates their very stringent idea of gender role assignments and strict separation of the genders. Such an image shows a woman taking on a role that is required of a/every man (engaging with the Torah), but only permissible to a/any woman (according to Halachah - Jewish law as they understand it). When a woman takes on that role, by definition a man does not (or perhaps, is prevented from doing so).
This concern is further exacerbated by a completely erroneous but widely held myth that a woman is forbidden to touch a Torah because she would render it ritually impure if she were in the midst of her menstrual cycle (and since no one can/will ask her, it is assumed she is always in that state). As I have learned about it, this idea is false on the face of it even within the most extreme understanding of Halachah, simply because a Torah cannot be rendered ritually impure: once written, essentially no matter who touches it or what is done to it; it can only be rendered unfit for use and in need of repair or burial, and that would certainly not be because someone touched it.
The very sad and destructive images we see broadcast of the “Orthodox” "Jewish" men who shout hateful things, disrupt the prayers of other Jews, and even engage in violence towards these women (Women of the Wall, for example) who only wish to pray to G-d is utterly incompatible with Judaism’s history, ethics, and system of Mitzvoth (commandments). In fact, it is these men who are desecrating the name of G-d by taking the name in vain, imposing their rules and claiming they know better than G-d. So far as I can find, nowhere does it say in the Torah (five books of Moses), Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures/Bible), or Halachah (Jewish law), specifically that a woman cannot read from the Torah; that is an imposition that has no basis in the text; it is entirely borne of man, and seems to me to be a violation of the principle of Be’Tzelem Elohim (in the image of G-d), denigrating the value of women as human beings, and denying that they too are formed in that image.
I would perfectly agree with the right of those who wish to hold minyanim (congregations) where no women are permitted to participate in the rituals to do so; but that does not mean that I agree in any way that these persons can dictate what other minyanim choose to do, nor does it give them any right to dictate what is permissible in any public location. Most essentially, they have absolutely no right to engage in violence towards anyone, and if they do, they should be arrested and tried and convicted, with severe sentences imposed to teach that no one is above the law, no matter how religious they may claim to be. Further, any police persons who fail or refuse to follow the law and the rulings of the duly established legislature and courts of Israel (or where ever they may be) should also be subject to disciplinary action, removal from their position, and civil and criminal penalties for abuse of office.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: I am married to a gentile man who is of Italian background. When I discussed with the Rabbi who married us if we have a child that is raised of a different religion will he still be considered Jewish, she advised yes. I am a 100% Ashkenazic Jew. My problem is my son (who is now 1½ yrs old) was circumcised by a Jewish doctor training to be a mohel. He did not have a bris. If he grows up and wants to marry a nice Jewish girl (like his momma) will he have to convert and/or be bar mitzvahed? Is he considered Jewish? Thank you.
Thank you for writing.
As I understand you to describe the situation, you are nominally Jewish, though not practicing, and the natural mother of this child. The father is some other faith. You are legally married to the father (though it is unclear if it was in any way a Jewish ceremony). I will respond based on that situation. If things are not as I described, it could change my answer - as in so many matters, the details are important.
Frankly, I have no idea who the rabbi was that advised you, but given what you have said, I think you got bad advice. Here is why.
According to a traditional view, because you are a Jewish mother, this boy will be seen as a Jew at birth. The status of the father is irrelevant because the traditional approach in Judaism is not to recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew. If the rabbi advising you was basing their advice on this Halachic (Jewish law) position, they were ignoring the other side of this equation, which does not permit or recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew. Thus, you can either accept the traditional approach and have your child seen as Jewish, but not be married for religious purposes, or, you can be married according to secular law and for religious purposes, but not have a Jewish child.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume you choose to view your child as Jewish and don’t worry about your marital status. The failure of the Jewish parent(s) to fulfill the commandments regarding a Brit Milah (Bris), naming, and Jewish education are not factors for that traditional viewpoint as to status - but the responsibilities the parent(s) shirked are pushed off onto the child. If you do not give the child an exclusively Jewish upbringing, including the appropriate rituals, it will become his responsibility at the age of 13 (or as soon as he is able to make the choice and act) to perform the rituals missed. That means he will have to be ritually circumcised as an adult; have himself named as a Jew, reject whatever other faith he may have been exposed to, and arrange to be educated Jewishly.
I am unsure what the view of Conservative and Orthodox rabbis would be in advance, in light of the fact that you have said you plan to raise this child as some other faith than Jewish. My guess is that they might see him as an apostate – a Jew that practices some other faith, not Judaism, but that is simply a guess, and you will have to see what they actually say when they respond.
From my perspective (and from the view of the Reform movement), the religious upbringing and practice you plan makes this child not a Jew at all. If he came to me, I would require that the child (and if a minor at the time, the parents as well) go through a full conversion process and become active in the Jewish community and in participating exclusively in Jewish ritual and worship. At a minimum, I would require that the minor child be educated and see Judaism in the home as the only religion practiced before being allowed to enter religious school; let alone to marry a Jewish person.(Children can be apples or oranges, but not fruit salad. They do not handle gray areas well; developmentally they need clear black and white positions until they are teenagers, at least.)
The Reform movement has come to view this issue differently than the other two groups mentioned. First, the Reform movement has recognized that there are intermarriages (marriages between a Jew and a non-Jew), and that there can be offspring of intermarriages who may be considered Jewish. The Reform movement’s holding on the Jewish status of the child of an intermarriage is found at http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/resodisp.pl?file=mm&year=1983. It reads in part:
The Central Conference of American Rabbis declares that the child of one Jewish parent is under the presumption of Jewish descent. This presumption of the Jewish status of the offspring of any mixed marriage is to be established through appropriate and timely public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people. The performance of these mitzvot serves to commit those who participate in them, both parent and child, to Jewish life.
Depending on circumstances,1 mitzvot leading toward a positive and exclusive Jewish identity will include entry into the covenant, acquisition of a Hebrew name, Torah study, Bar/Bat Mitzvah, and Kabbalat Torah (Confirmation).2 For those beyond childhood claiming Jewish identity, other public acts or declarations may be added or substituted after consultation with their rabbi.
[NOTE:I have added highlighting above for emphasis]
In the holding on the question of Patrilineal descent to establish the status of a Jew, found at http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/respdisp.pl?file=38&year=carr, the response elaborates on the requirements. This document reads, in part:
In order to overcome these problems as well as others, we now require "appropriate and timely public and formal acts..."
We are aware that we have made more stringent requirements than our tradition. We believe that this will lead to a firmer commitment to Judaism on the part of these individuals and that it will enable them to become fully integrated into the Jewish community. We have taken this step for the following additional reasons:
1. We do not view birth as a determining factor in the religious identification of children of a mixed marriage [intermarriage].
2. We distinguish between descent and identification.
3. The mobility of American Jews has diminished the influence of the extended family upon such a child. This means that a significant informal bond with Judaism which played a role in the past does not exist for our generation.
4. Education has always been a strong factor in Jewish identity. In the recent past we could assume a minimal Jewish education for most children. In our time almost half the American Jewish community remains unaffiliated, and their children receive no Jewish education.
For those reasons the Central Conference of American Rabbis has declared: "The Central Conference of American Rabbis declares that the child of one Jewish parent is under the presumption of Jewish descent. This presumption of the Jewish status of the offspring of any mixed marriage is to be established through appropriate and timely public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people. The performance of these mitzvot serves to commit those who participate in them, both parents and child, to Jewish life.
“Depending on circumstances, mitzvot leading toward a positive and exclusive Jewish identity will include entry into the covenant, acquisition of a Hebrew name, Torah study, Bar/Bat Mitzvah, and Kabbalat Torah (Confirmation). For those beyond childhood claiming Jewish identity, other public acts or declarations may be added or substituted after consultation with their rabbi."
October 1983
It would seem that given the circumstances described (a nominally Jewish mother raising the child as a non-Jew, identification and practice as a non-Jew, lack of any Jewish education, signal acts, or rituals) this child would not be accepted as Jewish within the Reform movement.
The upshot of all this is that I would conclude that your son’s status would be as a non-Jew, as things stand.
Good luck to you.
Rabbi Joe Blair Question: Is there a halachic obligation for a Jew to move to Israel? What is the basis for remaining in Chutz L’aretz (outside of Israel)?
This question is difficult to answer from a Reform perspective because it assumes certain things that are generally not true for most people associated with the Reform movement. In specific, it is based on the concept that Halachah (Jewish law derived from the Torah) is binding. This is not a universally accepted principle in the Reform movement: the binding nature of Halachah was rejected by classical Reform thinkers in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and their approach is still very much alive and well within the Reform movement. For those who follow this way of thinking, Halachah is one of the guidelines for how we should live our lives, but it is not obligatory, and one may choose to ignore it.
Taking the question at face value, however, it is still difficult to answer, this time because I can think of no Halachic obligation to move to Israel. There are lots of reasons given to do so, and lots of kudos to those who have, but there does not seem to be an obligation within Halachah to undertake this.
Just as there is no obligation to move to Israel, there is no need for a justification for a Jew to remain outside of Israel, if that is what they choose.
The obligation that is sometimes cited apparently comes more from a political argument than a religious one. It seems to be tied to the thinking of the Zionist pioneers in the late 1800s and following, who went to live on the land that had been Jewish since the days of the Bible, and be at one with it, in an effort to reshape Jews and to renew Judaism.
I hope that this is helpful.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: My father is Jewish and I have been raised Jewish my entire life. My mother was not raised Jewish but her side of the family believes that my great grandmother (my mother's mother) was Jewish. We are not 100% percent sure if she was Jewish or not and this has left me very confused. I do not know if I should convert or not and I am very hesitant to do so because I already feel Jewish. Converting would not change my ethnicity or how i feel as a Jewish person. I feel that if i would convert it would mean that I wasn't Jewish before and that is not how I feel. What should I do?
First, let me say that the speculation about your great grandmother will not answer. If there were specific proof, that would be one thing, but a belief that a woman three generations back from you might have been Jewish, without any supporting evidence, is insufficient to establish anything. Without more definitive proof, you cannot claim Judaism through your maternal line.
That leaves your only possible claim to Jewish status as being through your paternal line. Before going any further, I should point out to you that this avenue is closed in the eyes of the Orthodox and Conservative movements, to my understanding. So you really need to ask yourself why you want to establish your Jewish status, and in whose eyes?
The Reform movement has come to view this issue differently than the other two mentioned. The Reform movement’s holding on the Jewish status of the child of an intermarriage is found at http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/resodisp.pl?file=mm&year=1983. It reads in part:
The Central Conference of American Rabbis declares that the child of one Jewish parent is under the presumption of Jewish descent. This presumption of the Jewish status of the offspring of any mixed marriage is to be established through appropriate and timely public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people. The performance of these mitzvot serves to commit those who participate in them, both parent and child, to Jewish life.
Depending on circumstances,1 mitzvot leading toward a positive and exclusive Jewish identity will include entry into the covenant, acquisition of a Hebrew name, Torah study, Bar/Bat Mitzvah, and Kabbalat Torah(Confirmation).2 For those beyond childhood claiming Jewish identity, other public acts or declarations may be added or substituted after consultation with their rabbi.
Further, the Reform movement’s holding on the question of Patrilineal descent to establish the status of a Jew is found at http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/respdisp.pl?file=38&year=carr. It requires positive public and formal acts to apply. It reads, in part:
In order to overcome these problems as well as others, we now require "appropriate and timely public and formal acts..." The requirement has been worded to permit some flexibility for individual circumstances. With time and experience, custom will designate certain acts as appropriate and others not. It would be wrong, however, to set limits now at the beginning of the process.
We are aware that we have made more stringent requirements than our tradition. We believe that this will lead to a firmer commitment to Judaism on the part of these individuals and that it will enable them to become fully integrated into the Jewish community. We have taken this step for the following additional reasons:
1. We do not view birth as a determining factor in the religious identification of children of a mixed marriage.
2. We distinguish between descent and identification.
3. The mobility of American Jews has diminished the influence of the extended family upon such a child. This means that a significant informal bond with Judaism which played a role in the past does not exist for our generation.
4. Education has always been a strong factor in Jewish identity. In the recent past we could assume a minimal Jewish education for most children. In our time almost half the American Jewish community remains unaffiliated, and their children receive no Jewish education.
For those reasons the Central Conference of American Rabbis has declared: "The Central Conference of American Rabbis declares that the child of one Jewish parent is under the presumption of Jewish descent. This presumption of the Jewish status of the offspring of any mixed marriage is to be established through appropriate and timely public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people. The performance of these mitzvot serves to commit those who participate in them, both parents and child, to Jewish life.
“Depending on circumstances, mitzvot leading toward a positive and exclusive Jewish identity will include entry into the covenant, acquisition of a Hebrew name, Torah study, Bar/Bat Mitzvah, and Kabbalat Torah (Confirmation). For those beyond childhood claiming Jewish identity, other public acts or declarations may be added or substituted after consultation with their rabbi."
October 1983
It would seem that given your circumstances (a Jewish father, self-identification as a Jew) you would be accepted as Jewish within the Reform movement if you have also undertaken the signal acts noted in the last paragraph quoted.
If you have not engaged in these public acts, then it is far less clear. A related question to yours was submitted to this web site not long ago. It can be found on the website under the category of Miscellaneous topics in the subcategory of Status Issues at http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=92&cprg=/search.php%3Fsubcatid%3D51. (I suggest that it may be instructive to read the answers provided as background to your question). The facts in that earlier question differ from your situation in that there was no identified Jewish parent, nor were there timely public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people. You state that you have one specifically Jewish parent, and have apparently been raised to identify as a Jew, and to think of yourself as a Jew.
You do not state that you have made public or formal acts as a Jew, including undertaking formal religious education, Bar or Bat Mitzvah, Confirmation, or other signal acts. If these were not things you undertook, I would say, absent any other information, that you do not qualify to be considered Jewish under the stated criteria for the Reform movement, and you would be asked to undergo a formal conversion process.
The upshot of all this is that your status as a Jew may not be entirely certain, and open to doubt.
In matters of questionable status (instances of doubt), I have advised others in past that the easiest course seems to be to undergo the process of conversion. If you are technically Jewish, the conversion process will not change it, but rather affirm it; if you are technically not Jewish, conversion will change your status and provide you with firm proof of that status.
If you have been living Jewishly all your life, much of the educational and experiential component of the process will be easily accomplished, or may already be done, and you will be able to move through the process all that much more quickly, with your sponsoring rabbi. By undergoing a conversion, you will set all questions and doubts to rest. You can legitimately view this process as a positive adult choice to affirm and confirm your commitment to Judaism and the Jewish people, and to assert your identity and claim your heritage.
Good luck to you.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: Should a Jewish person cremate a Jewish spouse, if that is their desire?
Thank you for submitting your question.
A very similar question was posed recently to this site that answered this. You can find it here:
What should a Jewish person do if his or her loved one (also Jewish) wants to be cremated after they die? http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=28&cprg=/search.php%3Fcatid%3D11
As to why Jews are not to be cremated, please see this question and the answers posted.
Why can't Jews be cremated?
I hope that this is helpful.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: How and where can I be ordained as a female rabbi?
Thank you for submitting a question.
The answer begins not with the process or place, but with your status.
If you are not Jewish, or are affiliated in any way with another faith or religion, you cannot be ordained as a rabbi, period.
If you are Jewish by birth, or have undergone a formal conversion process led by a recognized rabbi, then you may be eligible to begin the effort to undertake the process.
Only at this point would your gender enter into the matter. The Orthodox movement does not permit the ordination of women as rabbis (though recently one Orthodox rabbi ordained a woman with a different title than rabbi; it is not certain that this situation will stand, nor is it clear that it will be accepted in general in the Orthodox world). For purposes of this answer, we will exclude the Orthodox movement as a possibility for you.
The next step is that you would apply to the appropriate seminary as a graduate student, including your GRE scores, transcripts, essays, and other information. You might be asked to take a psychological evaluation at this point. If you have the appropriate credentials, you would be granted an interview with the admissions committee. Your application would then be evaluated, and a decision made. Assuming you were accepted, you then attend seminary for the next five or six years.
There are seminaries for the Reform movement in New York, Cincinatti, Los Angeles, and Israel; for the Conservative movement in New York, Los Angeles, and Israel; for the Reconstructionist movement in Philadelphia. In all of these programs, all students are required (in general) to spend a year studying in Israel.
Upon completion of the academic requirements, the faculty of the institution would determine the fitness of the candidate to serve as a rabbi. If they felt that a person was not suitable, they would grant them a degree, but not ordain that person. Ordination coincides with graduation for most candidates.
In some instances, more often in Europe than the US, there was a process of ordination following apprenticeship. This model is followed somewhat today within the Jewish Renewal movement. It requires studying, working, and apprenticing with an ordained rabbi who serves as your primary teacher and mentor, and then as your sponsor, presenting you when ready to the rabbinic court that tests you and determines your knowledge, readiness, and suitability to be ordained.
There are other seminaries that have been developed in the last few years. These are not associated with a particular movement, but there is no guarantee that any particular movement will recognize their authority to grant ordination or to train rabbis.
Specific details may differ, but this is a general outline.
I hope that this is helpful.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: Why do candle lighting times vary within time zones? 8:08 in Orlando, 8:20 in D.C., this week, for example.
Thank you for submitting a question.
This is mostly a matter of science, rather than ethics. I am not a scientist, but here goes. :-)
You are aware that time zones vary as one moves around the globe from east to west. In the U.S., that is what explains the Eastern, Mountain, Central, and Pacific time zones. We complicate that in most places by also doing an adjustment for Daylight Savings Time; this is to ‘conserve’ daylight, a concern during the shortest days of the year. None of that, however answers your question. Instead, we have to think about the geography and topography of the location where the candles are to be lit.
Let’s take the situation in my immediate area. I live in Virginia, in the Central Shenandoah Valley region. This is in the same Eastern time zone as New York City, Atlanta, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and so on. Candle lighting times, however, vary in my region from all of those locations, and from place to place locally! Let’s look at why.
Our illustrative example is of someone living in a Valley, the low land between two sets of mountains, as opposed to someone else living to the east or west of both mountains, or on top of one of the mountains. For this mental picture, think of the sun’s rays coming from the west (in the afternoon), and moving from left to right, at some angle. The topmost parts of the lines forming the ‘V’ would actually be the peaks of the mountains, and the valley would be the area at the bottom inside the letter ‘V’. (You can actually draw this on paper as a simple diagram, if that helps.)
First, the rays of the sun travel in straight lines (for our purposes – we are not going to try to work with the theory of relativity and the bending of light and space!) At noon, the sun would be directly overhead, and the sun’s rays would be falling at close to a 90 degree angle, straight ‘down’. The rays would hit the peaks and the valley at virtually the same time (we are not going to worry about any differences in speed of particles of light travelling at the speed of light – that is too fast to concern us for our purposes).
As the afternoon wore on, however, the sun would ‘move’ with the rotation of the earth westward in the sky, so to the left and ‘lower’ in our mental picture, and the angle at which the rays of light would be striking the earth would increase gradually from 90 degrees to 180 degrees as the sun ‘moved’ towards the west and sank towards the horizon.
Thinking about close to sundown, the sun is far to the west and relatively close to the horizon. At some point, when the rays of the sun are at something greater than a 90 degree angle, the mountain on the left will begin to cast a shadow into the valley. At a given moment, no rays of the sun will strike the ground or be visible at the eastern foot of the mountain. As the sun moves farther along towards the west, and ‘down’ towards the horizon, the shadow will lengthen and the sun will be blocked on the inner (left or valley) side of the right hand mountain. Still later, the left hand mountain’s shadow will cover the peak of the right hand mountain. And later still, the sun will drop below the horizon, and there will be a shadow formed by the earth itself, and there will be no sun’s rays that strike the peak of the left hand mountain. Once (all of) the sun passes the horizon, we have reached sundown, and no rays of light hit the area in question directly (it is night). All of this occurs at a specific pace, and the process spans a period of elapsed time. This difference in the perceived instant of ‘sundown’ is why sundown times vary.
Using a slightly different example: if the earth were perfectly smooth, like a ball, there would be only one time for sundown throughout a time zone, but because the earth has valleys and mountains, and buttes and fjiords and dales and hollows and glens, and many other topographical features that change ‘height’, and many of which cast shadows or are thrown into shadow, there are a variety of different ‘sundown’ times depending on where you are in relation to the various topographical features! Again, using a ball as an example, if you stuck a triangular block on that ball with the peak pointing directly to the right, and held a light steadily out to the left, shining directly at the ball, the light would strike half that ball, more or less all at once. If you turn the ball so the peak of the triangle moved from that zero degree point, towards and beyond the 90 degree point (the peak pointing straight up), you would observe that the shadow of that triangle would cause the light to be blocked to the right of the triangle much sooner in that rotation than on the rest of the surface of the ball. For those we imagine to be living on the surface of the ball just to the left of the triangle, sundown would occur later than it would for those living on the surface of the ball just to the right of that triangle.
Candle lighting time is related to sundown; if sundown time varies, so does candle lighting time.
I hope this helps explain what is happening.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Administrators Note: Because this is not an ethical question, nor does it involve Jewish Values, this is the only answer that will be provided.
Question: I have been in a committed relationship for three years. While I'm not married and don't plan on getting married soon, my girlfriend and I do have sex. Is this considered ok, or is it going against the law of the Torah?
Thank you for writing and submitting your question.
As is so often the case in matters of Jewish concern, the answer is not a simple yes or no. Examining this from the viewpoint of the Reform movement, we see that there are competing values that are in play in the situation that you describe. Allow me to express a few of them (by no means all), and then attempt to weave them into an answer for you.
* First, Judaism places a very high premium on the concept of marriage, and especially the long-term committed relationship and social contract that it implies. Our texts (Torah and Talmud) teach that a person is not complete or whole until they find their bashert (designated or destined one) and marry.
Jewish marriage is not defined by legal documents; it is an affirmation of a relationship and a declaration of commitment. Historically in Judaism, ‘marriage’ could take place in one or more of three ways: by Ketubah (the contract for marriage, solemnified by the ritual ceremony, which incorporates the signing and witnessing of the legal document), by value (the “acquisition” of a spouse in exchange for something of known value, such as a ring), or by consensual sexual intercourse.
The last of these forms is vestigially retained in the secular system of English jurisprudence, and is sometimes called ‘common law marriage’. It is based on the concept that a couple holding themselves out and acting as if married in the eyes of the community, for all legal purposes are married. Under this approach, your status after three years would be ‘married’, without the other trappings.
* Second, Judaism values greatly the stability and social environment that marriage provides (in normal circumstances) for children and spouses. Especially in the matter of children, it is seen as important; procreation is a desirable outcome, and is in fact described as a mitzvah (commandment). Marriage facilitates the fulfillment of that mitzvah, and helps to provide the appropriate setting in which to raise children.
This may not be a great concern to you at this point. With the advent of effective Birth Control (a topic for an entirely different answer), the fear of the social stigma of children born out of wedlock has been largely minimized, and reduced even further by the number of high-profile persons (celebrities) who have dispensed with the need for marriage as a prerequisite to having children (as bad an idea as that is in practice). In Judaism, by the way, there is no such thing as an illegitimate child (a bastard): that is a child that has no legitimate parentage, whereas in Judaism every child is legitimate by definition, no matter the relationship of the parents [with the single exception of the child of a forbidden relationship, such as incest between family members; in that case the child becomes a ‘mamzer’ – one who may only marry another ‘mamzer’, but they are not ‘illegitimate’.].
* Third, Judaism has a very practical take on consensual sex; when done in the appropriate setting by true partners, it is one of the great pleasures and joys in life, as well as an intimate form of communication. Judaism does not see sex as ‘dirty’ or something to be hidden and snickered about; rather, it is a part of life which is to be enjoyed, and even those who cannot have children are encouraged to engage in appropriate sexual acts. Our sages have said that one who refuses to take enjoyment of that which G-d has placed in the world is showing ingratitude and churlishness; those things that exist in this world which are pleasurable are meant to be enjoyed in moderation. At the same time, sex is a very private act, shared between those engaged in it, not meant to be public, and there should be a strong curtain of modesty that surrounds this personal and private form of communication and shared pleasure.
A more traditional approach to answering your question might lean more heavily on the value of marriage as the only appropriate setting for sex, and/or on the value of tzniut (modesty) as a reason to curb your sexual urges until you had entered into the appropriate situation (marriage). Then, if your sexual union resulted in the birth of a child, it would be in a setting that was socially sanctioned and thought to be in the best interests of the child.
The more liberal or modern approach to answering your question might be to accept that you are both adults, living in a committed relationship that is similar to marriage in many regards, with sexual urges and feelings for each other, and able to consent to engage in sexual behavior.
I say might: it is not clear that each rabbi in a given movement would arrive at the same answer; and there would very likely be some overlap in answers across the denominational lines. That is because the answer reached would largely depend on the relative weight given to the various values. I don’t feel that someone offering any of the possible answers would utterly discount the concerns of those who would offer a different answer. There is certainly room to disagree within Jewish thought in this matter.
One area in which I suspect all respondents would completely concur, whatever movement in which they are a part, is that we are talking only about consensual sex. The values and ethical teachings of Judaism utterly reject any form of compulsion, rape, or force, or any sexual act that is against the will of one of the parties. I believe also that all would agree that in no instance would Jewish thought, law, or ethics condone any form of sexual behavior that degraded, abused, or otherwise damaged one of the parties physically, emotionally, or mentally; this includes mutual degradation, which is the source of the distaste expressed in much of Jewish thought for ‘one night stands’ and ‘casual or recreational sex’ and promiscuity.
In short: according to a fairly traditional approach, you should not be engaging in sexual behaviors if you are not married, but taking a more relaxed view (one recognizing that saying ‘just say no’ is not realistic given the situation), by engaging in sexual behaviors within the context of a committed relationship, you are acting in the spirit of Judaism, but perhaps not within the letter of the law.
The concern that I would ask you to consider in light of your question is this: in acting as if you are married, and engaging in sex within the context of a committed relationship, why are you hesitant to formalize the commitment you say you have made? Choosing not to marry in this situation is tantamount to saying to your partner that you are leaving one foot out the door, and that your commitment is only good until you meet someone better or more interesting. Is that really the message you want to convey to someone with whom you share the deepest and most intimate moments of communication possible? I would answer that in the negative - what about you?
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: People generally think their sins are committed against others and ask for forgiveness. This forgiveness does not always enable one to forgive themselves. How does one deal with forgiveness of yourself? And the guilt that may come along with doing or not doing that?
Let me start by talking about the term you used; “sin”. I believe this is a misnomer, which misleads people. Sin seems to be used more in a non-Jewish context. I would suggest that from a Jewish perspective, or a Reform Jewish perspective at least, there are two kinds of behavior that are sometimes lumped in as ‘sin’.
(1) Errors in judgment or other lapses in our behavior that can negatively affect others and/or ourselves, and,
(2) Outright Moral failings that might properly be called Transgressions or Trespasses, each of which injure/affect three parties: ourselves, other people, and (it is thought) G-d.
I would say that most of the time, we are talking about the first kind. This is referenced in the Yom Kippur liturgy as ‘missing the mark.’ Reasons for this sort of failing might be when we don’t do our best, we simply don’t pay attention, we forget, or when we fall short of what we can/should do. This action (or inaction) may not affect anyone else, so we may be the only one injured; or it may be the case that this injures someone else as well. In either case, it is a disappointment and should serve as a spur to try harder.
When we talk about missing the mark, we are not usually describing a grievous criminal act or a major moral failing; overeating, forgetting someone’s birthday, misplacing trust in someone, being late again; these are all in this category. It is difficult for me to see any of them as an affront to G-d, so the use of the term ‘sin’ seems quite inappropriate. We should seek to rectify these failures, and to ameliorate whatever damage we may have done to others, but it does not strike me as what would be a ‘sin’.
The second kind of failing seems more serious. A transgression or trespass could be when we aren’t careful or don’t think about what we say, and we enjoy a bit of gossip about a friend that gets spread around, eventually gets back to them, and causes them injury or hurt. In this instance, we see three parties injured; the person who gossiped, the person who listened, and the person who was gossiped about. In this, we might also hold the view that G-d is affected and offended as well, because we have transgressed one of the guidelines for living a good, moral, and godly life by gossiping, and our action has upset the order of the world around us – injuring G-d’s creation. This is indeed a failing that requires we do all we can to rectify it; but even so, this does not seem to me to rise to the level of a ‘sin’ as it is commonly understood.
A sin, it would seem to me, would be a direct affront to G-d. Not too many things other than murder, worship of idols, or defaming G-d’s name seem to fall in this category, as I think about rabbinic writings. And for these, there is no practical forgiveness; the murdered person cannot forgive, and G-d is not obliged to offer forgiveness when one has rejected G-d by the very action that violates G-d’s guidelines/commandments and offends G-d. In my mind, then, a ‘sin’ is not forgivable – and we should be very cautious about using this term.
Back to your question. When we miss the mark or transgress, we must perform Teshuvah (Repentance), which includes recognizing our failure, asking forgiveness from those affected, making restitution where possible, avoiding the same action in future, and seeking forgiveness from G-d. This is the process we are encouraged to follow for Yom Kippur.
As you see, it doesn’t say seeking forgiveness from yourself, which is the heart of your question. I would suggest that this is implicit in the procedure set out. Before you can ask forgiveness (from others or from G-d), I would say that you must feel that you are ready for it, and deserving of it. To arrive at that point, you must find the means to forgive yourself before, or simultaneously when asking others.
I would also argue that after fulfilling the process outlined, if one finds that they feel guilty or undeserving of forgiveness, it is because they are re-visiting the transgression and re-imposing the guilt, instead of letting it go and being done with it. Another way to say this might be to say that they are second-guessing themselves and the process (effectively, discounting the other people and G-d) by which they were forgiven, perhaps feeling it was not harsh enough. In American jurisprudence, we would call this ‘double jeopardy’ – being prosecuted more than once for the same crime; and it is forbidden. So should it be in this arena as well.
Even worse, as you imply in your final question, some refuse to forgive themselves, and then feel guilty for not forgiving. This is a complete catch-22 position; it is insoluble. In no way can I imagine that this would be the desired outcome from the system outlined. Neither would I imagine G-d creating this as the way the world should work, even in the most capricious and arbitrary behaviors that are attributed to G-d in the Hebrew scriptures or stories, nor would I imagine that G-d would wish for such an unfair and disastrous outcome to a transgression.
I hope that this is helpful.
Rabbi Joe Blair
Question: Why is there not more modern resistance to the idea that the Talmud, written by rabbis, carries the same authority as the Torah, given by God at Mt. Sinai?
Let me begin by pointing out that your question is based on several assumptions or presuppositions. It presumes that the Torah was written by G-d, that the Talmud was written by rabbis, and that either or both have some level of authority. There have been those in history who rejected outright all material that was not D'Oraita. They were called the Karaites. They wanted to live specifically and only according to the Torah. As time and history moved on, and the world of the Torah was replaced by the world of the rabbis and then in turn by later realities, it was necessary for Judaism to face and adapt to the new reality and to deal with it. Failure to deal with the reality in which you live leads to extinction both in history and in evolution. The Karaites are effectively not a factor in Judaism today because they did not adapt. The rabbis found ways to stay true to the core of Judaism while adapting to the changing reality around them. To answer you more clearly, I will speak hypothetically from the position of the most ‘extreme’ Reform position. (I would point out to you that this is not the position of all in the Reform movement, nor do I believe that it speaks for a majority today [nor is it my own view]). This is more in line with the thinkers who formulated Classical Reform - itself an adaptation to a particular time and reality. Viewing your question from that perspective, your question begs a question. Who says that the Torah was given by G-d at Within that viewpoint, this is not a question that has much relevance. Classical Reform holds that we are not obliged to accept that the Torah was divinely written, nor that the Talmud is anything more than an attempt to further the social and legal system developed by people to provide order and stability. Why worry about the relative weight of the components of the system, or about the level of authority of one component in regard to another? Why would we ‘resist’ the value or applicability of the Talmud, when it is not seen as binding law or as carrying any legal authority for Reform Jews? Why be concerned about how much weight is given to the Talmud relative to the Torah, when the Torah is (itself) not viewed as being of divine origin, or having any special legal applicability? In fact, neither has any more or less weight for this purpose, according to this viewpoint. Other responses from within the Reform ambit might well look more like those that you will receive from a Conservative or even an Orthodox perspective, accepting that Torah is divinely inspired, or divine in origin, and that Talmud is the combination of the Oral Law (oral Torah, divinely inspired or given) together with the interpretation of it, so it has similar weight and value to the Torah. It is only within that portion of the spectrum of Reform thought that your question has relevance. For those who see Torah (and even more so, Talmud) as having divine inspiration or origin, there would be no need or reason to question the authority of the Torah or Talmud, or to concern themselves with the distinctions overly much. Today, the distinction of D'Oraita and D'Rabbanan seems only to have applicability in some matters of fine interpretation of Halachah. There is can matter greatly, but for most it is not an everyday concern. Question: What is the Jewish position on an afterlife?
I must begin with a caution: there is no single Jewish position on this question (or most other things). There are many different answers which vary both between and within groups (for example, Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, Reconstructionist, Renewal, Lubavitch, Modern Orthodox, Breslov, etc.). In this specific case, given that there is no way to know what is correct, there is no position in which belief is required, so there may be as many answers as there are Jews at a given moment.
Even the Tanakh (the Jewish bible, also known as the Hebrew Scriptures) does not speak meaningfully to afterlife. There are only four parts of the text that reference it, two of them are in the context of visions or dreams (Isaiah and Ezekiel), and one is in a non-prophetic work which is emulating the style of the prophets (Daniel). Only the encounter of Saul with the spirit of Samuel (1 Samuel 28) seems to speak of afterlife; but there the dead (Samuel) knows nothing of the world he has left, nor of the world in which he finds himself, and rebukes Saul for disturbing and asking of him, a dead man, for any knowledge. In short, even in the one passage that might be interpreted to speak to life beyond death, it tells us that that existence, such as it is, is not life. This is not a question that most Jewish people spend a great deal of time contemplating, unless they are facing their own mortality. The tendency among most Jews, it seems to me, is to accept that this is unknowable, that speculation is fruitless, and that it is better to simply learn to live with ambiguity and uncertainty and to get on with life. The focus is on here and now, this world, and what we can do to better it. I hope that this is helpful. 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?
Let me preface my response by stating that I am neither a physician nor a veterinarian, nor do I claim any special knowledge not available to and shared by other interested persons. With that as the starting point, I will try to respond to your question, and to the question implied within it.
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?
This topic (along with piercings) comes up perennially in youth group and confirmation settings. I find myself having to address it every three or four years in those settings.
While I personally find tattoos distasteful, unflattering, often somewhat freakish, and slightly repulsive, I am aware that not everyone shares that view, and that it is particularly not held among young adults.
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?
Shalom.
You have asked several questions, so let's see if I can answer all in a brief format.
1. Olam Habah.
The crux of the question for olam habah is how you interpret the term.
If, by it, you mean another world, or some sort of life beyond the grave, I would say that most Reform Jewish thinkers would answer "no". This goes back to the ideological (and theological) position taken rejecting resurrection as a tenet of Judaism in the period of Classical Reform. I am not able to cite any studies showing general belief today, but the Reform rabbinate seems not to be unified in their approach to this question, so perhaps it is in flux.
On the other hand, if you mean by olam habah 'the world that is coming'; in other words, the improvement of this world, then I would say that most of the Reform thinkers would agree that this describes hopes for a messianic age (a time of peace for all, with no hunger, no poverty, and no oppression), and there would be general agreement that such an olam habah would be a possibility, and certainly something we should aspire to and work towards.
2. Living up to what is expected of you.
The Reform movement historically has emphasized the ethical and moral aspects of Judaism, especially as set forth in the Prophetic writings, so this question is in keeping with that approach. A fairly straightforward measure of this would be to conduct a self examination, and determine if you are acting justly and with kindness, supporting those around you in need, and making the world a better place. In this way of thinking, the instruction of Torah is the guide and the baseline, setting forth the goals; the details of how you are to do it are left to you. In this way of thinking, you are doing what God expects of you (if you believe in the divine origin of the Torah) and what you should expect of yourself as a human being, when you act in accordance with these principles and values. As a side note, this is the focus of the month of Elul and the Ten Days of Awe - the period leading up to Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), when we engage in introspection and examine our deeds in the past year.
3. God and God's Nature
I think that the jury is out on this one. Again, historically, at least some of the Reform movement's formative thinkers were uncomfortable with the idea of a personal God, and made some changes to the liturgy to remove that language, but as time has passed, that view is less clearly universal, and may be shifting (as I perceive to be the case in Reconstructionism). I do see many of the 'Jews in the pews' praying quite personally when they encounter a crisis; I am unsure what they think when things are going well for them. There has been movement in the Reform ranks towards more traditional ritual practices; perhaps this is also reflective of the view of God.
As for God's nature; I don't think there is a singular answer. Not for Reform, and probably not for Judaism as a whole. Perhaps the most commonly used analogy is God as a parent, however, God is depicted in the Tanakh (Hebrew scriptures) in multiple ways, and in Jewish thought the concept of God has changed and morphed over time. Even within the Tanakh, God is seen in many ways: angry, jealous, kind, loving, and a warrior, to note just a few. There is no single presentation, and no agreement on the nature of God.
|
|
LATEST BLOGS view all blog entries
National Slow Cooking MonthPosted on 12/31/2019 by Marcia Goldlist in Beliefs and Practices
January is National Slow Cooking Month. A slow cooker, also known as a Crock Pot (the way that tissues are known as...
A Halachic View of ‘Freedom of Religion’Posted on 12/24/2019 by Rabbi Ben Hecht in Holidays
It’s Chanukah time and Jews, around the world, are again celebrating this holiday which is said to mark our...
Why You Should Know the Name of Beatie DeutschPosted on 12/20/2019 by Marcia Goldlist in Beliefs and Practices
Beatie Deutsch may not be a household name, but she should be. She is a running dynamic who moved to Israel from the United...
I Haven’t Owned A TV Since 2001Posted on 12/19/2019 by Rivkah Lambert Adler in Beliefs and Practices
When I go back to the US for a visit, I am overwhelmed by the ubiquitousness of television in public spaces. I hear it...
When Anti-Semitism Is InconvenientPosted on 12/15/2019 by Moshe Daniel Levine in Beliefs and Practices
So it turns out that non-white supremacist anti-Semitism could be deadly in America. Who would have thought? It...
Wright Brothers DayPosted on 12/15/2019 by Marcia Goldlist in Beliefs and Practices
You may wonder what you can do in just twelve seconds. Could you make history? Could you even make dinner in that amount of...
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
JVO Panel of Scholars
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Jewish Values Online
Home | Search For Answers | About | Origins | Blog Archive 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. |