Question: Ethically, should an observant (traditional or trthodox) Jewish man attend a shiva minyan when it is not known if there will be a mechitzah (divider separating the genders during prayers)? If there isn't one, can he still attend & be counted, even if he doesn't daven (pray)?
HaRav Moshe Feinstein, of blessed Memory, was considered the Halachic arbiter of Orthodox synagogue guidelines. In a posthumous publication of his responsa, the following is reported.
Rav Moshe was concerned with whether it was necessary to have a Mechitzah separating the men and women sections for prayer, in the event that there were only one or two women. He notes: "Throughout the generations the common custom was for a poor woman to be in the Bet haMidrash to receive charity, or as a mourner to recite Kaddish." His response was that a Mechitzah was necessary even for one woman [who attended] on a regular basis. On an occasional basis, it was not necessary, should only one or two women be present. (Igerot Moshe, Vol. 8, Orech Chayyim 5:12b)
Note the terminology and the concern. Rav Moshe does not question the propriety of the woman who comes to the Bet haMidrash to recite Kaddish. He seems to assume that there are no Halachic qualms at all with such a function of women at religious services.
The only problem is whether there needs be a Mechitzah during her recital. Indeed, it is apparent that Rav Moshe accepts a woman reciting Kaddish as a normal, unquestionable practice.
In addition,there seems to be a leniency in that for a few women a Mechitzah is not necessary on an occasional basis. A “shiva House”is definitely an occasional situation. As such, at a Shiva minyon it would be permitted for an Orthodox person to attend even without a Mechitzah, providing there are only a few women.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Is it acceptable to read instead of chant Torah for a public reading? When a person celebrating a bar or bat mitzvah wants to read Torah or haftarah instead of learning the chant, what can one say other than "It's tradition!"
The Rambam notes that Moshe Rabbainu and his court ordained the Mitzvah of publicly reading of the torah during public prayers.(Hilchot Tefila,Chapter 12.Law 1)
In order to observe this mitzvah there are a number of essential concerns.
1. The Sefer torah must be kosher. Namely , It must be written correctly on parchment and no letters added or missing.Violation of this rule invalidates the Mitzvah.
2. A Sefer Torah does not have any punctuation or notes for vowels or proper pronunciation. Should it be read in a way that the reading error changes the meaning of the word, the mitzvah is not observed. (This rule obligates the reader to spend time studying to be able to read the Torah without mistakes.)
3.Tradition has it that there are notes to mark the proper chanting of the Torah. These notes are called “trope”. Of interest is that should one simply read the words of the Sefer torah portion without chanting any of the “trope”,the Mitzvah would still be observed. It may appear and be heard as a violation of tradition. It may be derided for being a bizarre deviation. Yet,the Mitzvah is observed even without the accepted chanting of the Torah. (See Aruch HaShulchan, Orech Chayyim 142: who explicitly so rules. It is, therefore, preferable and an enhanced means of observing the mitzvah by learning by heart to chant the portion with the proper ‘Trope”. Should, however, one not chant with the “trope” (bid’ieved) the Mitzvah is still observed. Many times I have personally been at synagogues wherein the regular Baal Korai was absent . In addition, no one was available who was able to read the Torah with the proper “Trope”. In such circumstances volunteers would read the portion without any reference to the “trope”.The custom, moreover, in many Hassidic (Shteeble’s) is for the Baal Maftir to say the Haftorah silently or all together with the congregation. As a result many who frequent these places do not even know the proper “trope”. In fact when they attend major large synagogues they refuse to accept Maftir for they contend that since all are attentive to the person reciting the Haftorah they are ashamed to recite it without “trope”.
4.For a Bar mitzvah youngster to read without “trope” would generate the following concerns. Why is he deviating from tradition? Was he simply not able to memorize the “trope”? Since he cannot chant, perhaps the synagogue should not have permitted him to read the Torah. Was there not sufficient time to learn how to chant correctly? Why should the congregation have to miss out on hearing a proper chanting of the Torah? Though these are decisions that individual synagogues may determine for themselves, according to Jewish Law, the reading of the Torah without chanting does not invalidate the Mitzvah. Some children simply do not have the ability to memorize both the reading as well as the chanting. Compassion is also a time honored Jewish custom.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Is it okay to shave your face with a razor instead of an electric shaver? I understand the electric shaver acts more like scissors than a blade, but I also understand the Halachah (Jewish laws) pertaining to this custom is intended to avoid a pagan practice. I used a razor for years, and changed to the electric shaver - the razor was much more efficient. Can you explain this, and comment on why it is so - what is the reason for this practice in Judaism, and is it universal?.
Tradition has it that it is prohibited to shave with a razor. This razor prohibition has been interpreted to imply two interrelated considerations.
1. The shaving process entails the destruction (cutting)of hair roots below the surface of the skin with a single blade.
2. The prohibition relates only to a normal process of shaving.Both features are prevalent when shaving with a razor.
The electric shaver , however, does not cut the hair roots beneath the skin.In addition, its mode of cutting hair is like a scissor. Namely a dual edged instrument that traps the hair but does not cut roots..Some rabbis contend that this is not the normal practice of shaving. A tweezer, for example would be permitted to utilize for shaving of a beard. It does cut(or destroy hair roots beneath the skin) but it is not the normal mode of shaving.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Why do women cover their eyes when lighting the Shabbat candles?
This custom is a means of overcoming a Halachic dilemma. Women light Shabbat candles prior to the onset of Shabbat on Friday.The general rule is that once a woman recites the blessing of “L’hadlik ner shel Shabbat-(to kindle the light [candle] of Shabbat.) she automatically assumes all the positive as well as the restrictions of Shabbat. Accordingly, at that moment she is no longer able to hold a candle or to light her Shabbat candlelabra . To simply light the Shabbat candles first and then to recite the blessing would violate the general rule that blessings precede the performance of a Mitzvah( a Biblical or Rabbinic mandated action) To offset this problem the custom developed to first light the Shabbat candles. The women then close their eyes and only open them upon the conclusion of the blessing. Thus the women do not violate the Shabbat by actually lighting the Shabbat lights after the blessing. By opening their eyes after the blessing they are symbolically manifesting that they are enjoying the light only after the blessing as is the general custom of blessings.
Of interest is that on Yom Tov (Holiday)one is permitted to cook as well as to light candles. Accordingly, it should be permitted for women to recite the blessing and then to actually light the Yom Tov candles. Two customs prevail. 1. Women light candles as they do for Shabbat. The rationale is that distinctions between Shabbat and Yom Tov may confuse women.2. A minority position is to recite the blessing and then to light the candles for such a practice is permitted by Jewish law. Also, some women contend that they are able to comprehend distinctions and need not customs that do not make sense.-
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
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.
Any child born prior to her mother’s actual conversion to Judaism requires a conversion either together with her mother when her mother converts or at a special conversion ceremony for her alone. The fact that her mother was involved in preparing for conversion when she was born does not grant her the status of a natural born Jew. A case in point would be a situation wherein a woman prepares for conversion and at the last moment refuses to be involved in the ceremony. The studies or preparatory acts do not confer upon such a woman any transfer of religious status. The woman is simply not Jewish. As such, the young lady whom you intend to marry is simply a convert.
At issue of concern is whether there is any Halachic ruling that would permit a kohen to marry a convert. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, the late master decisor of jewish law, developed the following position. He contended that in the event that there are no living parents or children who are Shabbat observers to attest that you are actually a kohen, or no reliable European tradition, one may contend that your status as a kohen is not halachically confirmed, and you may marry a convert. This means that lacking proper religious witnesses to your claim to being a kohen , you assume the identity of a non- kohen and may marry the young lady who is deemed a convert.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: [According to traditional Judaism] At what age can a Jewish boy have his first haircut?
What is the reason this might differ for the different streams in Judaism?
There is a tradition, originally practiced by Sefardim and Hasidim in Israel to refrain from cutting the hair of boys until the age of three. They would assemble on Lag B’Omer (The thirty third day of the Omer) in Meron, Israel at the gravesite of the great Talmudic kabbalist, Rav Shimon Bar Yochai.In the midst of bonfires, dancing and joy, the hair of the young boys would be cut and placed in the bonfires.One of the earliest references to this custom to cut the hair of boys upon reaching the age of three is found in the writings of Rav Chaim Vital (Sha’ar HaKavanot) who contends that his Rebbe,Isaac Luria, the Ari HaKodesh,(1534-1672) cut the hair of his son upon reaching the age of three.
A number of reasons are presented. 1. The Bible contends that “a person is like the tree of the field.” (Deut.20:19) Just as it is forbidden to eat fruit less than three years old, (Leviticus 19:23) so too should mark the first three years of a boy’s life.,He should be natural (Of concern is whether the analogy to trees mandates a specific procedure.) 2. At the age of three, Jewish boys commence Torah learning and the performance of Mitzvot. .Cutting of the hair at age three is a dramatic manifestation of the fact that a new stage of life has begun.3. Due to the fact that a child at three is trained to perform Mitzvot ,his hair is cut to frame (and leave) his sidelocks (Peyot) (This rationale would be of no interest to the non Hassidic community who do not have long, uncut Peyot)) 4.This custom is based upon Kabbala.(Once this mystic source is noted, then all rational explanations cease.It appears that many Jews are more stringent in performing customs based upon Kabbala than actual Mitzvot from the Bible or the Shulchan Aruch. Somehow the mystic unknown provides a degree of fear and punishment to those who may reject this custom.(kawshe sakkanta maiissura)
The custom was transported to Europe and America and is strictly observed by the Hassidic and Yeshiva world.In other communities the custom is not universally observed In the modern Orthodox community many do not follow this custom at all.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Purim (as I understand it) celebrates Jewish victory over enemies who sought to destroy us. We killed a bunch of them before they killed us. Two things: What's with the costumes? And: In this day and age where we actually have a sovereign state with an army, isn't it rather insensitive to celebrate this holiday?
Why costumes on Purim? What purpose do they serve? Is Purim merely a victory over enemies who sought to destroy the Jewish people? Is it just a story of war and victory?-
Purim symbolizes a number of significant symbolic messages to the Jewish people.
HaRav Dovid Ben Zimra, (Radbaz) an ancient Chief Rabbi of Egypt posed the following poignant question: Mordechai placed his people in jeopardy by not bowing to Haman. Why didn’t he flee or leave Shushan so as to not anger Haman? Tradition has it that Haman had an idol on his chest. Mordechai believed it was forbidden to bow before him. He was willing to sacrifice his own life to portray publicly that idolatry was forbidden. He never believed that Haman would decide to exterminate the entire Jewish population because of Mordechai’s refusal to bow. In addition, never did he think that the king would agree to Haman’s petition to kill out the entire Jewish people (Responsa Radbaz, Vol.I No. 186) Accordingly the Purim story teaches us that the action of just one Jew could generate a pogrom against the entire nation. This is a lesson with relevance even in an age where Israel is a nation with a mighty army.
The Maharal of Prague contends that the story of Purim teaches us that at times logic and rationale simply are not operational in life. Look at the story. See what took place. Two people wished to kill the king yet were killed in return. Haman believed the king wanted a method to honor himself,and , therefore,, gave an honor he sought, yet, the King responded that this should be done to Mordechai.by Haman. Haman wished to kill Jews. He was killed in return. The tree that was set up to hang Mordechai and his family was , instead used to Hang Haman and his family.The story was as said in Hebrew- V’nahapachu-just the opposite of what was planned. For this reason costumes are worn to demonstrate that the real person is never really known or to be identified.Everyone wears masks. Sometimes with costumes. Sometimes without.No one really knows the real person or the real picture of events.In such times, the God of Israel watches over our people.
Rabbi j. Simcha Cohen
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Can you explain what is written in these new (Orthodox and other) marriage “prenups” that more and more young religious people seem to be signing? Is this in line with Jewish law? Is it appropriate to contemplate the end of the marriage before it even begins in Jewish thought?
Robert Burns the poet once noted that “the best laid plans of mice and men gang oft aglay”. Its true. So too occurs with lofty religious rabbinic concepts and statutes. In an effort to eliminate the validity of any divorce wherein both husband and wife did not mutually consent, the religious world found itself confronted with numerous cases wherein one side or the other, (mostly the men) refused to grant their assent to a Get unless they were paid exorbitant sums of money or granted one sided custodial agreements. Many religious courts would not punish those who made such demands nor grant a Get until the demands were met.
Israel , for example, punishes such offenders. They have in fact jailed recalcitrant individuals who refused to grant a Get to their wives.In America, the religious courts do not have such authority. Many young wives subjected to unreasonably high demands simply succumbed in order to be able to remarry once again. Many women relate horror stories that held off their ability to remarry for years..One method developed was to provide social pressure against those who refuse to give their wives a Get.
The problem, however, is that the incidence of such horror stories became so widespread, that many Modern Orthodox rabbis began instituting the necessity of requiring prenuptial agreements prior to performing any marriage. The main clause stipulated in the “pre nup” agreement is that in the event that either side seeks a divorce, both the bride and groom consent to a religious Get and agree to a resolution of differences via a rabbinical court, (Bet Din) This, of course, is totally in line with Jewish law. Yet, some rabbis have rules that the ”pre nup” is a form of coercion that would nullify a Get. Such a view is not the consensus position.
Though at a wedding no one wishes to even contemplate a divorce, the rabbis feel that it is worth a moment’s discomfort to prevent the emotional and financial discord that has become so prevalent in the event of a divorce.
Rabbi J. Simcha Cohen
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Is it true that the giving of presents instead of gelt (money) on Chanukah is a borrowed tradition from Christmas?
Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, just the opposite is true. The original Jewish custom to celebrate a Jewish victory was to exchange presents, not money. Indeed, the Book of Esther notes that the Purim victory over Haman and his cohorts was to be celebrated by giving presents or delicacies to one another (Esther 9:19) The Codes define the form of the presents to be items of food. (Orech Chayyim 695:4) Some rabbis contend that the obligation to give presents of food on Purim is to enable all to have sufficient food to enjoy the obligatory feast that is required on Purim.(See Terumat HaDeshen, Sefer Mikrai Kodesh, Chanukah Purim By Rav Zvi Pesach Frank, p.152)
On Chanukah there is no obligation to have a feast (Seuda). At issue is the rationale for this difference between Purim and Chanukah. Common scholarship makes the following distinction. On Purim, Haman’s goal was to totally obliterate the Jewish people. No Jew was to be left alive. To the extent that victory meant that physically Jews were yet alive, the celebration was to be at a feast that was to be physically enjoyable. Chanukah was different. Jews that assimilated were not to be punished. The purpose of the enemy was not to kill Jews but to eradicate Jewish Mitzvot and culture. It was a kolturkamft. As such, there was no need for a physical feast.
I suggest that since the Book of Esther contends that upon victory presents to manifest communal friendship are in order, and a feast of food in not mandatory, perhaps the gift giving was retained but not with food. It mattered not whether it was money or just plain presents. It had nothing to do with taking customs from other religious.
Rabbi J. Simcha Cohen
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
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?
Question:If I made up a script to a movie and my friend took the script
and actually made a movie out of it, without my permission, and made
money from it, what are the Jewish Laws that prove I am the rightful
owner of the script and should get money from my friend.
Response:
A claim of ownership must be substantiated. Please note the following list of actions that may be utilized to assert ownership.
The claimant may show proof that documents demonstrate ownership
There are people that would testify to the validity of the author or owner.
Computer data discloses the real owner.
A time frame showing ownership predating the period of the friend’s claimed date of ownership is noted.
In terms of compensation, the following rule should serve as a guide.
Jewish law is unique In that a thief who subsequently enhanced the value of an item stolen is not obligated to repay the current increased value but only the value of the item at the time of the theft. (Bava Kamma 93b-94a)
Accordingly,anyone who, without permission, took someone’s script and made it into a movie would only be financially responsible to repay the owner or author of the script the value of a script and not the enhanced value of the movie.Of course, a script written for possible usage for a movie may have to be assessed as to the going market rate for such a script.
Rabbi J. Simcha Cohen
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
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?
At the age of thirteen, a Jewish boy is legally obligated to observe all commandments (Avot 5:25,Yoma 82a) The ceremony manifesting this new status is called a Bar Mitzvah which literally means a son of a Mitzvah, indicating that the youngster has come of age and is required to follow all commandments as a full fledged adult. At the synagogue ceremony the young man is called to receive an Aliya to the Torah, which is denied to those under the age of thirteen, to publicly manifest his new elevated status. In addition, common practice is to host a festive meal (Kiddush) for family, friends and worshippers. The party is an ancient custom based on a statement of a Talmudic blind rabbi who contended that if the law was that blind people were obligated to observe commandments comparable to seeing people he would make a special party. In other words the obligation to perform Mitzvot was deemed a joy that mandated a party. Accordingly, a young boy now being obligated to perform Mitzvot was a joyful condition that merited a party.(See Kidushin 31a, also Yom Shel Shlomo, the Rashal, Rav Shlomo Luria)
There is no obligation, nor any viable tradition for grandparents to be involved in any form of a Bar Mitzvah celebration at any advanced age.
Yet, in the contemporary scene, a number of elder Jews have sought to celebrate a Bar mitzvah at advanced ages. Why? I believe there are a number of reasons for this phenomenon.
Numerous survivors of the Holocaust never had an opportunity to have a Bar Mitzvah when they were thirteen years of age. Such survivors feel that they missed out and wish to publicly demonstrate their joy at being able to observe Judaism without restraints. Accordingly, many schedule Bar Mitzvah celebrations at synagogues to demonstrate their involvement with the Jewish people and their traditions. Of course, these events are not obligatory.
The Talmud records that several rabbis made parties when they reached the ages of sixty, seventy and eighty. Each age level signified that they were past certain ages of punishment. For example, the Biblical punishment of Korait-cutting off or having children die during the lifetime of the parent, would not take place after the age of sixty. Accordingly, once a person attained the age of sixty, he was overjoyed at no longer meriting such a punishment. The other ages implied that other punishments were not to be meted out to him, and a party to manifest achievement of this new stage of life was in order..(Moed Katan 28a) Upon reaching these age levels in contemporary times one might seek to celebrate by being called to the Torah and making a party.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: I sometimes feel disrespected by my bosses, but am hesitant to defend myself. What does Jewish law say about how employers should treat employees? Are there a set of rules that one should follow?
Question: I sometimes feel disrespected by my bosses but am hesitant to defend myself. What does Jewish law say about how employers should treat employees? Are there a set of rules that one should follow?
Response:
“Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” So goes a rhyme learned in childhood. It is a means of teaching children character and pride. The negative names others cruelly use to hurt or denigrate should not be allowed to inflict pain. Words are simply empty, meaningless gestures. No one should be depressed over such words. Physical abuse is a problem to fear. Verbal abuse should have no impact upon a person.
These sentiments are noble but contrary to reality. Verbal abuse can seriously hurt another. It can deflate ego, denigrate self esteem and depress character. It can be remembered for ages and cause the victim to harbor visions of revenge. In fact, to some -verbal brutality is more onerous and painful than a physical attack. The humiliation crystallized can seriously alter a lifestyle. Especially painful are the disrespectful verbal abuses emanating from an employer; Such experiences transform a daily work session into a grueling nightmare.
What does Jewish law say about this situation? How should one respond to verbal harassment and disrespect?
It should be noted that Scripture classifies verbal brutality as a sin, a violation of Jewish law. The Bible states, “V’lo tonu ish et amito”(Leviticus 25:17) A number of translations of the Bible miss the essence of this verse. The Jerusalem Bible(1980-Koren)says,”You shall not, therefore, defraud one another.”The old Jewish Publication Society version(1947) and the Menorah Press edition of the scriptures (1957) state ”and ye shall not wrong one another.” These translations are too general. They simply do not clearly state the specific wrongdoing that the Bible prohibits. The Talmud rules that this verse condemns the verbal slighting of the feelings or sensitivities of another.Jews, for example, are prohibited to make reference to a dubious past., to call someone jeering, nasty names, or even to arouse false hope such as by asking the price of an item that one does not intend to buy. (Bava Metzia 58b-59a)
Based upon the above Talmudic concerns, Samson Raphael Hirsch translates the verse to mean, “Ye shall not hurt the feelings of another.” In other words it is a Biblical command to not hurt the feelings of another. Just as Shabbat is important, so too are the sensitivities of another. One is prohibited to steal. So too is it a crime to make a person feel badly .In other words verbal abuse is comparable to physical abuse. Coupled to this is the position of Hillel who ruled that “what is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. (Shabbat 31)
The difficulty is that the Talmud and Codes contend that rabbinic courts cannot rectify cases of verbal abuse.(See Bava Metzia 58b, Choshen Mishpat 228:1) In the event that an employer withholds wages, rabbinic courts are the proper vehicles to protect the rights of the employees. In sensitive issues involved with hurting the feelings of others, the problem is that an employer may argue that he never meant to hurt the feelings of his employees.. He may also contend that he truly respects the employee and that his words are really a form of endearment. Such arguments simply mute the power of the courts Accordingly, the Codes state that the recourse of the victim is to cry out to G-d, who is able to detect the true intentions of the employer and will punish him accordingly.(Choshen Mishpat Ibid.,) In other words, Jewish law does not provide to the victim any practical legal recourse..
There is, however, a pragmatic resolution which requires judgment as to whether it galvanizes a positive reolution or a probable negative reaction.
Biblical Jewish law mandates a reaction to the observance of a violation of a positive or negative commandment. One is required to privately admonish the sinner .(Hochai’ach To’chiach et amitecha- you shall reprove your fellow- [Leviticus 19:17])To the extent that it has been manifested that verbal abuse is a sin, this suggests that one may treat the person who is heaping verbal abuse upon another just as one would treat any violator of Jewish law. Namely, the so-called sinner is to be questioned and reproached about his actions.Such a discussion may be gentle and entail the following by a friend.“Are you aware that some of your statements about X really hurt his feelings? You probably do not realize his sensitivity to your behavior which is affecting his attitude during the workplace. I know you do not wish to simply hurt his feelings, so could you be so kind as to refrain from any negative tones or name calling. Please, you will see a changed person should you change.” These words may positively impact the employer. It may also incite him to further treat his employee with contempt. This is the judgment decision.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: 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?
The Bible and the Talmud do not contain any reference to this prohibition. Indeed, just the opposite, the Lubavitcher Rebbe notes that from verses in Genesis it is evident that Terach (father of Abraham) named his son Nachor during the lifetime of his father Nachor.(See Genesis 11:24-26; Sha'arai Halacha U’Minhag,Yoreh Deah, Volume III, p.298)
In addition, the Talmud records a case of a mother concerned about the circumcision of her third son whose two older son’s died as a result of circumcision. Rav Natan gave sage advice that was followed and the child lived and was named “Natan HaBavli”. (Shabbat 134a) The overt indication appears to be that the name given to the child after the Rav was an act of honor to the Rav and certainly not a sinful act.
The Talmud, however, does not grant total discretion to parents to name children any name they so select. The one limitation was a rabbinic ruling prohibiting to name children with names of sinners or evildoers (R’sha’im).(Yoma 38b)This rule has yielded two basic interpretations A simple understanding is that this is a practical means of expunging the names of Jewish sinners from usage. The implication is that there is a general ban against mentioning the names of the wicked and the practical vehicle to curtail such usage was to simply not name children after them. Rabainu Chan’nanel notes that the prohibition against using the names of the wicked means that “any person so named will not be successful”.This implies a form of a curse. Any child named with the name of an evildoer will simply not be successful in life. What parent would wish to jeopardize the success of a child by disregarding the rabbinical ban? There is no question as to whether parents will refuse to name children the names of sinners once they are aware of the projected doom for anyone so named.The uniqueness of Rabbainu Cha’anel’s position is that he introduced elements of mysticism and fear into the ordinary function of naming a child.
In Ashkenazic Europe the custom developed to refrain from naming children with the names of living persons. The following rationales are presented.(Some with sources, some without.).
Common custom is to name children after parents or grandparents who are no longer alive. To name a child after a living person gives the impression that one wishes they were dead, Chas V’Shalom.- (B’rit Avot 8:20 cited in the name of Noheig Katzon Yosef)
When a child, together with his/her father or grandfather have the same name, the Angel of Death may, by mistake, kill the youngest rather than the father or grandparent.
According to Jewish law it is not deemed proper respect to call one’s parent by his/her first name.(Yoreh Deah 240:2) Giving a child the name of the living parent or grandparent would generate confusion and a belittlement of respect.(Chelkat Yaakov, Yoreh Deah 136,Shmirat HaGuf V’haNefesh, Vol. II, 154:9)
To forestall such errors, Ashkenazim simply did not name children after a living person. Thus, concern for proper respect for parents, mysticism, coupled with fear of the “evil eye”, serve as the basis for the custom. There never was an official rabbinic law to outlaw naming a child after a living person. It is merely a custom .that has prevailed comparable to a rabbinical ban.(It is merely an extension of the mystic position of Rabainu Chan’anel.)
Many years ago a family requested that I perform a wedding during the Nine Days commemorating the destruction of the holy Bet HaMikdash. I mentioned that according to jewish law one was not to be married during this period of time. To this they responded that they were not too religious and were not perturbed about violating the law. When I mentioned that it was deemed “Bad Luck” to get married at that time, they immediately changed the date for the wedding. In other words even Jews who are not observant on a regular basis will not be involved with any matter shadowed by the spectre of “Bad Luck”. So too with the Ashkenazic ban against naming a child after living persons. No one wishes to galvanize “Bad Luck” upon their children.(Kashe sakanta m’isurah)
The Sefardim simply never adopted any such customs. They follow the original tradition wherein it was totally permitted to name children after living persons. Indeed, they deem the act as a form of granting honor to parents or grandparents.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: What is the Jewish view on abortion? If abortion is not allowed, what if the baby was conceived out of wedlock?
A proper response requires that the question be limited in scope for it is too general for practical consideration. Jewish law under certain conditions prohibits abortions and in other cases may even mandate abortions. Accordingly, no one may be able to state any clear cut general position. In order to solicit a realistic and pragmatic response it is necessary, therefore, to frame the question in a more limited manner.
One such concern would be to assess whether Jewish law agrees with the legal decision of the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade (1973). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that within the first trimester of pregnancy women have the right to terminate an embryo or fetus within them. It, moreover, clearly contends that women are under no requirement to provide medical or other compelling reasons to permit the abortion. Women simply have the authority and discretion within the first trimester to abort a fetus. Jewish law, however, disagrees with the above position. Women are not granted such authority. Abortion on demand is simply prohibited. Without extenuating circumstances the rabbinate does not condone abortion. Though this is the consensus ruling of halachic scholars, it is not clear as to whether this prohibition is a Biblical or rabbinic ruling.
One sage in the Talmud, Rav Yishmael, even suggests that Scripture itself is the source for prohibiting indiscriminate abortions. It is written, “Whoso sheds man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed”. (Genesis 8:6- The Holy Scriptures, Koren Publishers)Of interest, is that the actual Hebrew text does not state that the action was performed “by man”. It, rather, says that it was “B’adam” [in man or , rather, in one’s body].-. Literally it means the shedding of blood occcurred in the person’s body. Rav Yishmael, therefore, contends that the meaning of a body in the body of another, relates to the abortion of a fetus which is prohibited.(Sanhedrin 57b) Others, do not consider such a Biblical interpretation as logically compelling. What is clear is that whether the prohibition is Biblical or rabbinic the consensus is to outlaw abortions unless there are extenuating circumstances.The Talmud, for example,rules that one may violate the Shabbat to save the fetus of a woman who died in childbirth. (Arachin7b) This overtly demonstrates the high regard held of the religious importance of preserving and protecting a fetus.This law does not define a fetus to be a living being. It merely notes that a fetus which will develop into a live person must be protected.
A brief case by case analysis will shed light on Halachic reactions to specific issues.
1.In the event that the mother’s life is deemed to be in jeopardy due to her pregnancy, Jewish law mandates the termination of the fetus to save the life of the mother.(Ohalot 7:6) It is evident that had the mother not had a life threatening condition, the termination of the fetus would have been prohibited.
2. Should a fetus be defective, there is rabbinic disagreement as to whether it is permissible to abort the fetus. Rav Moshe feinstien rules that it is forbidden to terminate the pregnancy contending that defective children have a right to live. Accordingly, he prohibits aborting the pregnancy of a mother who has been determined that she will give birth to a Tay Sachs child. HaRav Feinstien is of the firm belief that the abortion of such pregnancies is a serious immoral violation of Jewish law.(See “Aborting A Jewish Fetus”, Kuntras L’Torah V’Hora’a, Choveret 7, p.9,Elul 5’737) A contrary lenient position was ruled by Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg. He felt that the severity of the ramifications of the Tay Sachs disease, namely, stunted physical and mental development followed by inevitable death by the age of four, mandated Halachic scholars to be lenient. As such, he permitted abortions in such cases to be performed until the seventh month of pregnancy.(Responsa Tzitz Eliezer, Vol.13:102)
3. May a woman who was raped abort her pregnancy? Rav Benzion Uziel, Sefardi Chief Rabbi of Israel, alongside Rav Kook, ruled that it is permissible to abort the pregnancy of a women raped to protect her from shame and humiliation.(Mishpatai Uziel,Vol.III,Choshen Mishpat, 46)
4. May the fetus of a Mamzer, a bastard or a child born in wedlock be aborted? (It is important to note that according to Jewish law a Bastard, a Mamzer is not a child of wedlock. It is , rather , a child born from incest or adultery.) Rav Moshe Feinstien rules that it is forbidden to abort such a child as well as a child of wedlock. (op.cit.,) According to RavUziel, it is permitted to avoid shame.(op.cit.,) Rav Yaakov Emdin ruled that it was permitted to abort a married woman made pregnant through adultery for the child would be classified as a Mamzer but not a child of wedlock for such a child has no stigma. (She’lat Yaviz 1:43)
5. In Nazi concentration camps it was ordained that all pregnant women were to be put to death.Were such women permitted to abort their pregnancy? Rabbi Efraim Oshry ruled that it was permissible to save the lives of the women. (Tashbez, pt3, No.2)
6 May an abortion be performed to prevent a nervous breakdown or mental problems to a mother? Those rabbis that disallow an abortion to women raped or claiming that a live birth will generate shame, also do not consider mental anguish as an Halachic excuse for an abortion. Those rabbis that deem shame to a mother as reason to permit abortions are lenient in terms of mental problems.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Copyright 2020 all rights reserved. Jewish Values Online
N O T I C E
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN ANSWERS PROVIDED HEREIN ARE THOSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL JVO PANEL MEMBERS, AND DO NOT
NECESSARILY REFLECT OR REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE ORTHODOX, CONSERVATIVE OR REFORM MOVEMENTS, RESPECTIVELY.
