All Questions Answered by Rabbi Bonnie Margulis (Emerita)
Question: I want to convert to Judaism, but I've been told I should look to convert under a rabbi approved by the Chief Rabbi in Israel in order for my conversion to be considered kosher. Is this true?
It depends on what you mean by ‘kosher’. Different rabbis, and different movements, have different standards for conversion. Orthodox and Conservative rabbis will require mikvah (ritual bath with specific blessings) for men and women, and tipat dam (literally, ‘a drop of blood’ – a symbolic ritual of circumcision) for men. In the Reform movement, some rabbis require these rituals, others may recommend but not require them, and still others may offer these rituals as possibilities if they are meaningful for the conversion student but neither require nor recommend them. All rabbis, however, would require a certain amount of study and reflection and involvement in the Jewish community.
Orthodox rabbis, both in Israel and in the US, would not recognize conversions done by Reform rabbis, no matter how stringently the conversion process adhered to traditional rituals. Conversions done by Conservative rabbis might be recognized by some Orthodox rabbis, but not by all. This would only be an issue if you, or your offspring, want to marry someone who is Orthodox or want to marry in Israel. The Orthodox community would not recognize you or your offspring as being Jewish and would require an Orthodox conversion before you (or your child) could get married. In Israel, regardless of what movement you were converted in, your conversion would be recognized for the purpose of citizenship, but again, it wouldn’t be recognized for the purpose of marriage, which is controlled by the Orthodox rabbinate.
So, if you are concerned about being able to marry in the Orthodox community, or in Israel in any Jewish community, then you will want your conversion to be by an Orthodox rabbi. If these scenarios are not a concern, then you should be converted by a rabbi in whichever Jewish movement where you want to affiliate.
I hope that is helpful.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: I am a non-Jew who is considering proposing to my girlfriend, who is Jewish. She has said she wants to be married in a Jewish temple/synagogue. Are we able to be married there if I am not Jewish?
The question is really whether you want to have a Jewish wedding and be married by a rabbi? If the answer is yes, and if you can find a rabbi who will perform the wedding, I don't see why it couldn't be in a synagogue. But there is no requirement that a Jewish wedding be held in a synagogue, as a matter of fact, they usually aren't. Jewish weddings can be performed anywhere. Traditionally, they were performed outdoors, in the town square or other public place. Today they are performed in hotel ballrooms, in restaurants, in parks, in reception halls, in private homes, and other places. What makes a wedding Jewish is not its location, but that the officiant is a rabbi or cantor, that the Jewish blessings are said, the Jewish rituals are observed, and that other religions' traditions are not included. Please be aware that many rabbis will not perform intermarriages, and those who will usually have different criteria under which they will agree to perform the wedding. A Jewish wedding involves blessings and readings that celebrate the creation of a new Jewish family and establishment of a new Jewish home. I suggest before you and your girlfriend decide to get married, you have some serious conversations about the place Judaism and your religious tradition, if any, will have in your lives together. Your wedding should be a reflection of who you both are as individuals and who you intend to be as a married couple. I hope this helps.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: From a Jewish perspective, is there anything wrong with attending a Mardi Gras celebration? Administrators Note: For answers to a somewhat similar question regarding Halloween, see on the JVO website http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=319].
From a Jewish perspective, is there anything wrong with attending a Mardi Gras celebration? Administrators Note: For answers to a somewhat similar question regarding Halloween, see on the JVO website http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=319&cprg=%2Fsearch.php%3Fsearchtxt%3Dsaint%2Bbased%26what%3DA].
The festival of Mardi Gras has a long history. Its origins probably pre-date Christianity and are rooted in pagan fertility festivals. One history I consulted (http://www.neworleansonline.com/neworleans/mardigras/mardigrashistory/mghistory.html) noted that it might have origins in the ancient Roman Lupercalian festival. Early Church leaders couldn't get their formerly pagan converts to give up the festival, so they imbued it with Christian meaning and associated it with the last bit of merrymaking before Lent. Today's celebrations, such as the New Orleans Mardi Gras, are a pretty secular affair. I don't see any harm in attending a party or watching a parade, no more than I have a problem taking my kids trick-or-treating or getting flowers from my husband on Valentine's Day. For me, the line is drawn when we cross over into observing a custom that is inextricably linked to someone else's religious tradition. So a Christmas tree, or an Easter egg hunt, which convey meaning and carry symbolism inextricable from their religious meaning, would be going too far.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: What is the ideal way to give tzedakah, charity?
The great Jewish philosopher and sage, Moses Maimonides, answered this question for us in the twelfth century, in his Jewish Law code, the Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Mat'not Ani'im 10:1,7-14. He teaches us there are eight rungs on the ladder of tzedakah.
The lowest rung – someone who gives to the poor, but unwillingly.
Next – giving to the poor gladly
Someone who gives willingly, but only after first being asked
Someone who gives before being asked
Someone who gives without knowing who is the recipient, but the recipient knows the giver. Maimonides gave the example of the greatest sages who would tie coins up in the corners of their robes, and the poor would pick off the coins as the sages passed by.
The next rung is knowing who your recipient is, but they do not know who you are. Maimonides said the sages used to leave gifts of money in the doorways of poor people’s houses, and he adds that this is a meritorious thing to do, but only when those in charge of the community’s tzedakah funds are not trustworthy.
Next is giving without knowing the recipient, and the recipient does not know the giver, as when you put money into a community tzedakah box.
The highest level is giving a gift, making a loan, or forming a business partnership with the poor person, so that he will have a profession and no longer need tzedakah.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: My husband converted to Judaism (Conservative). He had a daughter from a previous marriage who was raised Christian (before my husband converted). His daughter just had twins, and we want the babies to eventually know that their grandfather, his wife and their children are Jewish. We were wondering if it would be ok to send the twins tzedakah boxes. We feel these will not only let them know they have Jewish relatives but also teach them the importance of charity. Would this be ok?
My husband converted to Judaism (Conservative). He had a daughter from a previous marriage who was raised Christian (before my husband converted). His daughter just had twins, and we want the babies to eventually know that their grandfather, his wife, and their children are Jewish. We were wondering if it would be ok to send the twins tzedakah boxes. We feel these will not only let them know they have Jewish relatives but also teach them the importance of charity. Would this be ok?
It sounds like a lovely gesture to me.Pretty much all religious traditions teach the value of charity and this can be one of the many things you and your husband can share with his daughter and grandchildren.As they grow, you will have many more opportunities to share traditions, to celebrate each other’s holidays together, to celebrate life-cycle events, and to teach and learn about each other’s faiths.Being Jewish is part of who you and your husband are, and there is no reason not to share this part of your lives with your grandchildren.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: The problem of agunot ('chained' women - those who cannot get a divorce from their former husbands to allow them to move on with their lives) continues to plague our society. Why isn’t there a halachic (Jewish law) way to grant a woman a “get” (divorce decree) without the consent of her husband? Or is there?
[Administrator's note: This topic has come up in past, and there are other, related questions on the JVO website that should be viewed in connection with this one for a fuller range of responses.]
There is a very thorough answer to this question already posted on Jewish Values Online.
I refer you to: http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=275, which outlines several different avenues the Orthodox and Conservative communities have come up with to deal with this difficult issue. It is not an issue in the Reform community, as a get is not required for a civil divorce to be recognized for Reform Jews.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Why is the Book of Maccabees not read on Chanukah?
While the books of the Maccabees are of Jewish origin, they are not part of the Jewish ‘canon’ – that collection of ancient Jewish works that are accepted as sacred and authoritative that we call the Bible. The books of the Maccabees, however, are part of an extra-Biblical collection of Jewish ancient works known as Apocrypha. There is much speculation among scholars as to why certain works became part of the Biblical canon and others did not. Whatever the reasons, the fact is these works, including the books of the Maccabees, were excluded and fell out of use in the Jewish community, although they were preserved in Christian communities.
Even though the books of the Maccabees were not part of the Biblical canon, the celebration of Hanukah was a popular holiday. For a variety of reasons, the Rabbis were not big fans of the Hasmoneans (the family name of the heroes of the Hanukah story, Maccabee being a nickname), and wanted to downplay the emphasis on the secular, military aspect of the holiday. So the Rabbis of Talmud created the story of the one-day supply of oil lasting eight days as a way of injecting a miraculous element into an otherwise secular holiday, to shift the focus away from glorification of the Hasmoneans and toward glorification of God. (Talmud Shabbat 21b). It is this story that became the well-known, widely taught raison d’etre for Hanukah and remains so to this day.
There is an ancient work, known as the scroll of Antiochus, which was written in Talmudic times in Aramaic, and later translated into Hebrew, Arabic, and other languages. It was a collection of stories about the Maccabees, the legend of the oil from the Talmud Shabbat 21b, and other legends that sprang up about the story of Hanukah. It was read during Hanukah in different communities between the ninth and twentieth centuries (A Megillah for Hanukah? By Rabbi David Golinkin http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Jewish_Holidays/Hanukkah/In_the_Community/Hanukkah_Scroll.shtml) Perhaps the time has come to revive this custom, not to read the Scroll of Antiochus, but rather to read and study the books of the Maccabees and ground our Hanukah celebration in the historical context and meaning that was its origin.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Was it wrong for the Israel ministry of absorption to launch a media campaign with the message that Jews living in the U.S. can never live a fully Jewish life? Is this true?
YES, it was very wrong for the Israeli Ministry of Absorption to launch an ad campaign with the message that Jews in the US cannot live a fully Jewish life, and NO, it is not true. The American Jewish community is rich and vibrant in its diversity of expression. Rabbi Gerald Skolnik wrote an excellent article in the Dec. 8, 2011 issue of New York Jewish Week that addresses this question. (see http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/rabbis_world/thoughts_israeli_ad_campaign) As he points out, Judaism thrives across a wide spectrum of belief and practice, from Orthodox to Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative, Humanist and Jewish Renewal. Jewish organizations devoted to social justice work alongside Jewish cultural and arts organizations. Bookstore shelves groan under the weight of the myriad books devoted to topics related to Judaism, from Jewish-themed literature, to cookbooks, to Jewish history and philosophy. Jewish magazines and newspapers are published across the country. Of course we face challenges in the face of rising rates of intermarriage and the ongoing reality of living in a majority-Christian culture, with all that entails. But these challenges are often a catalyst for creativity and an impetus for American Jews to strengthen and deepen their ties to their faith and their community. The fact is, for the last 2500 years of the Jewish Diaspora, there has been hand-wringing about assimilation and intermarriage tolling the death-knell to Judaism. Yet, over that same 2500 years, Judaism has grown, developed, adapted to changing times and circumstances, and continued in all its many forms and facets.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: What is the Jewish tradition's position on interment in a mausoleum?
In Reform Judaism, there is no impediment to burial in a mausoleum. A responsum written in 1981 discussed this question. The conclusion was that, in earlier times in Jewish history, burial in caves (the ancient equivalent of a mausoleum) was common. Abraham bought the Cave of Machpelah to be a family burial site. According to the Torah, that is where he is buried, along with Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Rebekah, and Leah. Kings in ancient Israel were buried in caves, and later sages were buried in tombs. Only later in Jewish history did it become the norm that burial in the ground was preferred, to ensure the deterioration of the body back to dust. Today, even many Orthodox authorities permit a completely closed coffin, so contact with the soil is no longer a strict requirement. For all these reasons, Reform Judaism would permit mausoleum interment.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Why is there a tradition to say chapters of Tehillim when someone is ill?
There are many different traditions around the recitation of Psalms. One tradition is to recite Psalms all night while holding vigil with a corpse the night before burial. Certain Psalms are recited in connection with various holidays. In some traditional communities, people are encouraged to recite the Psalms every day. According to midrash, King David created the psalms to fit every occasion, every need. Many of the psalms contain messages of comfort and hope, and as such are appropriate to say at the bedside of one who is ill.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: As a science museum with an exhibition that has a human brain in it what is our obligation to alert orthodox Jewish visitors to its presence?
I don’t see that a science museum has any particular obligation to alert a specific segment of the population about the contents of an exhibit. I think a museum has some general obligations to ensure that all its exhibits are legally and ethically obtained and treated ethically (e.g. that art or artifacts from other lands or cultures were not stolen or appropriated without permission; that human remains such as mummies are treated with dignity and respect, that modern remains such as skeletons or organs are obtained through voluntary donation and are treated with dignity and respect.) If some exhibits are potentially disturbing to some viewers, either because they might be too young for some exhibits, or because they might have religious or ethical objections, the museum might post a general warning at the entrance to that exhibit to the effect that the exhibit contains items that might be disturbing to some. But as a general rule, anyone coming to a science museum has to know there are going to be various kinds of human remains on display, whether they be mummies or bones or organs or anything else. If this is going to be disturbing to them for any reason, I would think they simply wouldn’t go to such a museum.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: It seems that often, in the Jewish community, mental illness is hushed up and not spoken about. Do we have an obligation to report to social services (or elsewhere) a member of our community that we feel needs professional psychiatric help?
What is the best course of action to report a member of the Jewish community that seem to be mentally unstable? Should we report this to our community Rabbi, Jewish Family Services, public social services, the police? Where is the line between hurting someone with Lashon hara and helping to prevent tragedies?
It seems that often, in the Jewish community, mental illness is hushed up and not spoken about. Do we have an obligation to report to social services (or elsewhere) a member of our community that we feel needs professional psychiatric help? What is the best course of action to report a member of the Jewish community that seem to be mentally unstable? Should we report this to our community Rabbi, Jewish Family Services, public social services, the police? Where is the line between hurting someone with Lashon hara and helping to prevent tragedies?
In the wake of the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, there was much discussion in the press about whether the tragedy could have/should have been prevented if Jared Loughner had been forced to seek mental health treatment or even been forcibly committed. The fact is, while there are legal mandatory reporting requirements for suspected child abuse, there are no such requirements for suspected mental illness. After the shooting, Jeffrey Geller, director of Public Sector Psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, and Sally Satel, a psychiatrist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute made such a proposal in an article printed in USAToday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-01-18-satel17_ST_N.htm). However, even in such proposals, the presumption is that the mandated reporters would be health care workers, not the general public.
There is nothing in Judaism that would require someone to report on suspected mental illness in another member of the community. In my opinion, unless you are reporting to the police that you were victimized by this person and suspect mental illness to be the cause, there are few other circumstances under which ‘reporting’ on this person would not be lashon ha-ra. Even among mental health professionals, there is a great reluctance to presume to diagnose mental illness in someone they have not formally examined. For a non-professional to do so would be ill-advised to say the least.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: What is the idea behind “kol yisrael arayvim zeh lazeh?” Are we really responsible for each other’s actions? How can a nation spread out throughout the world truly bear responsibility for each other?
What is the idea behind “kol yisrael arayvim zeh lazeh?” Are we really responsible for each other’s actions? How can a nation spread out throughout the world truly bear responsibility for each other?
The concept kol yisrael arevim zeh l’zeh does not mean we are responsible for each other’s actions.Rather, it means we are all responsible for each other’s well-being.This means, on a personal level, if we see a Jew about to commit a sin, we are to step in and help them stay on the right path. If we see a Jew in trouble, we are responsible to help. On a public policy level, we are to step in when we see the Jewish community, here and around the world, in trouble.So Jews in America spoke up and acted out to help Jews in the Soviet Union; Israel acted to rescue endangered Jewish communities in Yemen and Ethiopia.And American Jews today speak out when they see Jews in trouble around the world or see Israel’s government acting in ways that might be detrimental to the long-term interest of the Jewish State.For more information, see:
“The Talmud (Shevuot 39a), in discussing the domino effect of sin, concludes with the Aramaic phrase, Kol yisrael arevim zeh bazeh, meaning all of Israel are responsible for each other. This phrase is the basis of the notion of communal responsibility in Jewish law. If one Jew sees another Jew at the verge of sinning, he has an obligation to step in and help. Even more so, it implies an obligation on all Jews to ensure that other Jews have their basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter taken care of. Simply by virtue of being a Jew one is responsible for the well-being of other Jews, and vice versa.”
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: In President Obama’s recent speech on the Middle East, he endorsed Palestinian demands for a two-state solution based on pre-1967 lines. This brings fears that Israel will be vulnerable to repeated attacks, like those that occurred between 1948 and 1967. As a Jew, how can I vote for a President that is pressuring Israel to withdraw to indefensible borders even though I support the President’s domestic policies?
I can’t tell you who to vote for, but I urge you to make your decision based on the facts, not on propaganda and misinformation. The idea of a two-state solution is hardly a “Palestinian demand”. For most of Israel’s history, the Palestinian leadership refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Today, Hamas still refuses to recognize Israel, while at the same time making unity agreements with Fatah. The fact that the Palestinians are moving toward asking for a UN resolution on Palestinian statehood in no way equates to a Palestinian recognition of Israel. Nor is President Obama pressuring Israel to withdraw to indefensible borders. For one thing, Israel managed to defend those borders pretty well between ’48 and ’67, so I’m not sure by what definition those borders are ‘indefensible’. But even if they are, that’s not what the President said, despite Netanyahu’s convenient misquoting of the President when he spoke to our Congress. This is what President Obama said:
“We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
The crucial element, that Netanyahu and others try to leave out, is ‘mutually agreed swaps”. This means that each side would give up certain areas of land in order to recognize facts on the ground (e.g. Jewish neighborhoods on the east side of Jerusalem would remain part of Israel, Palestinian neighborhoods would become part of Palestine) and to provide Israel with enough of a buffer zone to be secure. This formula is not new, is not radical, is not anti-Israel, and is not original with President Obama. It has been the basis for peace negotiations at least since the 2000 Camp David peace talks, and has been the stated policy and position of every United States President since Richard Nixon.
Presidents’ statements from Nixon onward on Israel’s occupation of land beyond the ’67 borders include:
The expropriation or confiscation of land, the construction of housing on such land, the demolition or confiscation of buildings, including those having historic or religious significance, and the application of Israeli law to occupied portions of the city are detrimental to our common interests in [Jerusalem]. The United States considers that the part of Jerusalem that came under the control of Israel in the June war, like other areas occupied by Israel, is governing the rights and obligations of an occupying Power. Among the provisions of international law which bind Israel, as they would bind any occupier, are the provisions that the occupier has no right to make changes in laws or in administration other than those which are temporarily necessitated by his security interests, and that an occupier may not confiscate or destroy private property. The pattern of behavior authorized under the Geneva Convention and international law is clear: the occupier must maintain the occupied area as intact and unaltered as possible, without interfering with the customary life of the area, and any changes must be necessitated by the immediate needs of the occupation. I regret to say that the actions of Israel in the occupied portion of Jerusalem present a different picture, one which gives rise to understandable concern that the eventual disposition of East Jerusalem may be prejudiced, and that the private rights and activities of the population are already being affected and altered.My Government regrets and deplores this pattern of activity, and it has so informed the Government of Israel on numerous occasions since June 1967. We have consistently refused to recognize those measures as having anything but a provisional character and do not accept them as affecting the ultimate status of Jerusalem. . . .
President Ford’s administration:
Clearly, then, substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the [Geneva] Convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future negotiations between the parties on the location of the borders of States of the Middle East. Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my Government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors.
President Carter’s administration:
This matter of settlements in the occupied territories has always been characterized by our Government, by me and my predecessors as an illegal action.
Again, Carter:
And I let Mr. Begin know very clearly that our Government policy, before I became President and now, is that these settlements are illegal and contravene the Geneva conference terms.Mr. Begin disagrees with this. But we’ve spelled this out very clearly on several occasions in the United Nations and other places that these settlements are illegal.
President Reagan’s administration:
The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transition period. Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlements freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be fee and fairly negotiated.
President Bush I’s administration:
Since the end of the 1967 war, the U.S. has regarded Israel as the occupying power in the occupied territories, which includes the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The U.S. considers Israel’s occupation to be governed by the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the 1949 Geneva Conventions concerning the protection of civilian populations under military occupation.
President Clinton’s administration:
The Israeli people also must understand that . . . the settlement enterprise and building bypass roads in the heart of what they already know will one day be part of a Palestinian state is inconsistent with the Oslo commitment that both sides negotiate a compromise.
President Bush II’s administration:
Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338.
Excerpt from President Obama’s speech on the Middle East:
For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost to the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security and prosperity and empowerment to ordinary people.
For over two years, my administration has worked with the parties and the international community to end this conflict, building on decades of work by previous administrations. Yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks. The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on and on and on, and sees nothing but stalemate. Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward now.
I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever. That’s certainly true for the two parties involved.
For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.
As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it’s important that we tell the truth: The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.
The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people -– not just one or two leaders -- must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.
Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them -- not by the United States; not by anybody else. But endless delay won’t make the problem go away. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows -- a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.
So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -– by itself -– against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.
These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.
Now, let me say this: Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.
I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. That father said, “I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.” We see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. “I have the right to feel angry,” he said. “So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate. Let us hope,” he said, “for tomorrow.”
That is the choice that must be made -– not simply in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but across the entire region -– a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past and the promise of the future. It’s a choice that must be made by leaders and by the people, and it’s a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: If a woman has been in a coma for two years would Jewish Law permit disconnecting her life support in these circumstances? She was not given any other options when she was first admitted to the hospital, was on a respirator and gets her food from IV nutrition, and therefore, her husband feels as though he has no options other than to pull the plug. It has been two years of constant suffering and sadness for both him and her parents. What would Jewish Law say?
If a woman has been in a coma for two years would Jewish Law permit disconnecting her life support in these circumstances? She was not given any other options when she was first admitted to the hospital, was on a respirator and gets her food from IV nutrition, and therefore, her husband feels as though he has no options other than to pull the plug. It has been two years of constant suffering and sadness for both him and her parents. What would Jewish Law say? Thanks.
There are several stories recorded in the Talmud and later rabbinic literature which illustrate Judaism’s opposition to euthanasia, even in the face of a lingering and painful death.One such story is told of Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradion, who was martyred at the hands of the Romans in the second century CE.The Talmud relates, in Avodah Zarah 17b, that the Romans wrapped him in a Torah scroll and burned him at the stake. Seeing his great pain, his students cried out to him to breathe in the flames and so die more quickly.But he replied, “It is better that God who gave me my life should take it, and I not kill myself.”
On the other hand, Jewish tradition also teaches us that it is not for us to prolong life beyond its normal course.The story is told of the end of the life of the great sage, Rabbi Yehudah Ha-Nasi.His colleagues and disciples were gathered in the courtyard of his house, praying for him.He was dying slowly and in great pain, but the prayers of his followers were keeping him in this life.Finally, a maidservant took pity on him.She broke a plate in the courtyard, startling the men at prayer and disrupting their prayers just long enough to allow his soul to slip away.(Ketuvot 104a)
From these and other stories we learn that we should neither artificially hasten, nor artificially prolong death.With this in mind, the Reform Movement recognizes that sometimes it is appropriate to refuse extraordinary measures to preserve a life beyond the point of meaningful life, and even to remove devices which are artificially maintaining a life that would otherwise come to an imminent end.
The Reform Movement has several very good resources to help patients and their families deal with these very difficult end-of-life issues.First is a book called A Time to Prepare, revised and edited by Rabbi Richard Address.From the Union for Reform Judaism website: “Newly revised, A Time to Prepare is both an source of information and a workbook to help consolidate and record all the information you or your loved ones will need to handle critical illness or death. Topics include: durable power of attorney; organ donation; wills; ethical wills; rituals for saying "good-bye", and more.” (http://urjbooksandmusic.com/search.php?mode=search&page=1).
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: With all the talk about democracy vs Islamic rule in Tunisia and Egypt, I was wondering how very different our own religion was.... If our very religious extremists had their way, would Israel be a democracy? How can we reconcile the modern ideal of democracy with the (seemingly) clear preference in our own texts for autocratic rule (monarchy)?
As a matter of fact, the Biblical text does not prefer monarchy, but rather acknowledges that, in that time and place, monarchy was the prevailing system of government. If the Israelites wished to be like other nations, and they did, then they needed to install a monarchical system. But the clear preference was for the older system of judgeships. In I Samuel 8, the people ask Samuel to choose a king for them, so that they may be like other nations. Samuel doesn’t want to do this, but God tells him if this is what the people want, then this is what they shall have. But, God says to Samuel, let them know just what they are getting themselves into. So:
10Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the Lord will not answer you in that day.” 19But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.” 21When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. 22The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”
The ancient Israelites can hardly be faulted for not calling for a democratic system of government, for such a thing did not yet exist. Even in later antiquity when Greek civilization brought a notion of democracy to the world, it was not democracy in our modern sense, for only the wealthy landed class could participate. The rest of society was oppressed under this system.
Looking to modern times, the clear preference of the Jewish community was for democracy, and the State of Israel was set up as such, as seen in Israel’s Declaration of Independence:
…..ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.
WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "Israel"….
This is not to say that we do not have in our midst fundamentalist and fanatic Jews who would want to see the State of Israel become a theocracy, but they are a very small minority, and even they would not want to see a monarchy established, believing the only true Monarch in Israel is God.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: I saw one of my 14-year-old son’s female friends post something on Facebook that I feel is very dangerous and makes her easy prey for Internet predators. I vaguely know this girl and her mother from around town. Where are the boundaries of ‘lashon hara’ here? Can I say something to the mother?
I saw one of my 14-year-old son’s female friends post something on Facebook that I feel is very dangerous and makes her easy prey for Internet predators. I vaguely know this girl and her mother from around town. Where are the boundaries of ‘lashon hara’ here? Can I say something to the mother?
I believe the situation you describe falls more under the category of pikuach nefesh – saving a life, rather than lashon hara. Lashon hara is gossiping, slandering, spreading nasty rumors about someone. (see “Leshon Ha-ra” in The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, revised edition (1986), edited by R.J. Zwi Werblowsky and Geoffrey Wigoder, published by Adama Books. http://www.myjewishlearning.com/practices/Ethics/Talk_and_Gossip/Types_of_Speech/Gossip_Rumors_and_Lashon_Hara.shtml) You aren’t doing that. You are reporting an activity you witnessed yourself, not with the intent of harming the person you are talking about, but with the intent of saving her from harm. Furthermore, the need to save someone from harm is that much more imperative when the person in question is a minor. When I counsel with minors, I always tell them from the outset that anything they say to me in a counseling situation is confidential, EXCEPT in a case where I find they are being harmed or are intending to harm themselves. In that case, as a mandated reporter, I have to report to the proper authorities that a child is in danger. Your case is even easier. You were not in a position of a confidential advisor such as a therapist, pastoral counselor, or medical caregiver. There is no presumption of confidentiality. In addition, the activity itself was in no way confidential, it was put on her Facebook page for anyone to read. I see no impediment to your letting the girl’s mother know what you saw. Indeed, I think it is your responsibility to do so, in order to protect the child.
You may want to talk to the girl first and let her know your concerns and advise her to take down the questionable material herself. Then, if she does not do so, you should tell her mother, letting the girl know that you are doing so. She might be annoyed, as might your son, but weigh that against the possibility of someone being harmed when you might have prevented it, and I believe your course is clear.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: I am completely disgusted with Israel’s politicians behaving so self-interestedly. But I am afraid to say anything about it in conversations with non-Jews for fear of further tarring Israel with a bad image. How open can I be in political conversations about Israel, and does it matter who I am speaking to?
I am completely disgusted with Israel’s politicians behaving so self-interestedly (as in the recent Barak / Netanyahu / Labor scandal)…like all politicians, I suppose…But I am afraid to say anything about it in conversations with non-Jews for fear of further tarring Israel with a bad image. How open can I be in political conversations about Israel, and does it matter who I am speaking to?
Your question addresses an issue that has perplexed and beset the American Jewish community since before the State of Israel was proclaimed – how far can American Jews go in publically criticizing policies and actions of the Israeli government, without endangering American support for the State of Israel? There is no easy answer, and as the end of your question implies, who you are speaking to at any given moment will color how you speak about Israel. We often find ourselves taking a more extreme, or at least less nuanced, position than we really believe when we are confronted with extreme positions on the other side. That is to say, if someone attacks Israel and is not open to rational discussion, we may find ourselves defending an action with which we really disagree, because we do not want to give any ammunition to support the other person’s attacks. However, if we are speaking with someone who is open to discussion, I believe it is not only possible, but important, to try to educate and inform as much as possible about where you agree, and where you disagree, with the Israeli government. The important thing to emphasize is that the government is not the whole State of Israel, just as the Obama Administration is not the whole of America. We can disagree with things our government does without being disloyal or unpatriotic Americans. So, too, can we disagree with the policies and actions of the Israeli government, and still support the right of Israel to exist as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people. Indeed, many Israelis disagree with their government on many issues, but they are still loyal and patriotic Israelis. We should be able to be open and honest about our feelings and opinions, good and bad, toward Israel, without fear of being seen as anti-Israel. I think the best answer is to be as informed as possible, so you can provide an educated perspective on both where you agree and where you disagree with Israel’s politics. You can find helpful and balanced information in a recent Central Conference of American Rabbis resolution on the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel (http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/resodisp.pl?file=israel&year=2008); at the Association of Reform Zionists of America (www.arza.org); at JStreet (www.jstreet.org ) ; at Rabbis for Human Rights-North America (http://www.rhr-na.org/); at the Israel Religious Action Center (www.irac.org); and at Americans for Peace Now (www.apn.org ).
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: From a Jewish perspective, what obligation is there for the head of household to carry life insurance? If so, when is this obligation no longer required?
Life insurance being a modern concept, Jewish tradition does not really have anything to say about it. However, there are laws regarding obligations of a husband toward a wife, and a parent toward his children. The ketubah, or marriage contract, was created to provide protection for a wife in case her husband dies or divorces her. It guarantees her a certain sum that she will receive in either of these eventualities. The traditional amount was 200 zuzim for a wife who was a virgin before her marriage, and 100 zuzim for a woman who had been married before. One could look upon this as a type of insurance for the wife, so that she would not be left in penury if widowed or divorced. Parents similarly have certain obligations toward their children, including circumcising sons, teaching a child Torah, seeing that the child is married, and teaching a child a trade so that the child will have economic security in adulthood. Some also add teaching a child to swim. No where is it explicitly stated that a parent must provide financial support for his children, but one can infer that this responsibility did not need to be stated, it was assumed. One could further extrapolate from this that a parent is obligated to provide for his children in the case he dies before the children are grown, which would argue for an obligation to carry life insurance. In short, while there is no explicit requirement, it certainly can be seen to fall under the general category of spousal and parental responsibilities to carry life insurance, for as long as necessary to ensure the economic stability of the family.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: I teach my kids that recycling and saving the planet is a mitzvah, but I don’t really have any sources to base that on. Can you help me?
Yes, it is absolutely a mitzvah to protect the environment – both in its colloquial meaning of ‘good deed’, and in its technical meaning of being a commandment. As a matter of fact, there are at least two commandments which enjoin us to protect our world. The first is the very first commandment in Torah – pru u’rvu – ‘be fruitful and multiply’. The rest of the verse (Genesis 1:28) says:
“And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
While you might interpret this to mean the world is ours to do with as we please, the traditional understanding of this verse is that we are all stewards of the earth and therefore responsible to protect and preserve creation as God made it.
Further, Deuteronomy 20:19-20 says:
“When in your war against a city you have to besiege it a long time in order to capture it, you must not destroy its trees, wielding the ax against them. You may eat of them, but you must not cut them down. Are trees of the field human to withdraw before you into the besieged city? Only trees that you know do no yield food may be destroyed; you may cut them down for constructing siege works against the city that is waging war on you, until it has been reduced.”
From here we get the injunction – bal tashchit – “do not lay waste”. It is incumbent upon us not to destroy this earth that God has given us.
Finally, the Talmud tells us, in Avot d’Rabbi Natan:
“Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai ... used to say: if you have a sapling in your hand, and someone should say to you that the Messiah has come, stay and complete the planting, and then go to greet the Messiah (Avot de Rabbi Nathan, 31b). “
We see from this the great importance the ancient sages placed on preserving the environment.
These are just a few of many examples from the Bible and the Talmud that teach us the value and importance of protecting the world that God has created for us and entrusted to us. There are several Jewish organizations that are devoted to this work, and you can learn more about Jewish text and tradition on the environment by visiting their websites. See the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life (COEJL) – www.coejl.org. Also, Hazon: Jewish Inspiration, Sustainable Communities – www.hazon.org. And Jewish Vegetarians of North American – www.jewishveg.com.
I hope you will continue to educate yourself and your children about the vital importance of protecting our environment. It is an important Jewish value, and essential to our role as partners with God in the ongoing work of creation.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: I am offended by non-Jews who take on Jewish rituals. Is this right? It would seem to me that non-Jews would be offended if I took on their religious rituals as some kind of cultural form.
As in so many of life’s questions, context is important. For example, if a non-Jew comes to synagogue on Shabbat as a guest or visitor, and sees people donning kippot and talitot (yarmulkes and prayer shawls), he may put on a kippah and talit, thinking it the custom for everyone and wanting to be respectful and do the right thing. If he asked me first if he should or had to wear a kippah and talit, I would say no, it’s only something for Jews to do (see CCAR Responsum 5765.5 May a Non-Jew Wear a Talit?.http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/respdisp.pl?file=5&year=5765)) But if he did it without asking, I wouldn’t ask him to take it off, not wanting to embarrass him. On the other hand, if a non-Jewish friend put a mezuzah on their door, I would gently and politely explain that a mezuzah is not a decoration or a good-luck charm, but a reminder of the 613 commandments that are incumbent upon Jews, but not non-Jews, and that a mezuzah is a symbol and signal that this is a Jewish home where Judaism is observed. Since that would not be case with my non-Jewish friend, it would not be appropriate for him to have this on his doorpost. I am sure that, given that explanation, he would understand and remove the mezuzah.
I believe there are two key factors at play – boundaries and identity - in addressing questions of whether and when it might be appropriate for non-Jews to participate in Jewish rituals. Jewish ritual and practice is what sets us apart and creates our self-identity as Jews. To see a non-Jew take on a Jewish ritual is to overstep the boundaries and blur identities. Again, context is important. It would not feel strange to us to invite non-Jewish friends to attend our seder and to participate in the reading of the Haggadah. But we would not have them lead the brachot in the seder, as these are particularly parts of the seder that the seder leader is doing as a Jew, and on behalf of the other Jews. It is clear, in this context, that the non-Jews are there as guests, and not as someone who is commanded to observe and perform the blessings and rituals of the seder. Similarly, a non-Jewish relative of a Bar or Bat Mitzvah might read a psalm or other inspirational passage in the service, but would not recite a blessing that is particular to Jews and is done in the service on behalf of the Jewish congregation. So, again, those rituals and prayers that are particular to us as Jews, that identify us as Jews, that are incumbent upon us to observe as Jews, would not be appropriate for non-Jews to observe. But for non-Jews to participate as guests in those areas that are more universalistic or not done on behalf of the congregation, would be fine.
The Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Reform Movement’s rabbinical organization, has had these types of questions addressed to its Responsa Committee at various times, concerning non-Jews’ participation in Jewish rituals. It has fairly consistently come down on the side of reserving to Jews those rituals and practices that are specific to Jewish identity and boundaries. In addition to the responsum cited above, see also a responsum on a non-Jewish synagogue member observing shiva for a parent, http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/respdisp.pl?file=4&year=5760, and non-Jewish members participating in a ritual writing of a new Torah scroll, http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/respdisp.pl?file=1&year=5765.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: What is the proper response of the American Jewish community when Israeli policy seems misguided?
What is the proper response of the American Jewish community when Israeli policy seems misguided?
The Reform Movement is a strong supporter of the State of Israel and has deep ties to the land and people of Israel. There are currently over 30 Progressive (the Israeli term for Reform Judaism) congregations in Israel, plus a growing network of schools, community centers, kibbutzim, and other institutions. The American Reform Movement is a supporter of these institutions, as well as the Jerusalem campus of the Reform Movement’s seminary, Hebrew Union College, and also of the Israel Religious Action Center, which advocates for religious pluralism, equal rights, and social justice in Israel. Since 1978, the Reform Movement’s ties to, and advocacy on behalf of, the State of Israel has been fostered through the work of the Association of Reform Zionists of America (ARZA – www.arza.org).
Because the Reform Movement supports Israel as a strong, democratic, Jewish state and is concerned for Israel’s long-term security, it is a strong advocate for policies that both preserve Israel’s democratic character and promote Israel’s welfare. At times this may result in expressions of disapproval of specific policies or actions of the Israeli government or of particular political or religious authorities in Israel. However, such disapproval or criticism should in no way be taken as lack of support for the State of Israel or her people.
In 2009, the Reform Movement was instrumental in creating the Inter-Agency Task Force on Israeli Arab Issues. The Task Force, a coalition of 80 American Jewish organizations, is devoted to Israel’s security and democratic character, and is particularly charged with advocating for equal rights for Israel’s Arab citizens, as called for in Israel’s Declaration of Independence. The Reform Movement has been vocal in calling upon Israel to live by its ideals of religious freedom and pluralism and equal rights for all its citizens. It has repeatedly called upon Israel and the Palestinians to engage in meaningful dialogue to establish peace, based on mutual recognition and respect (see, for example, the CCAR resolution on Israel and the peace process from 2001 at ; http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/resodisp.pl?file=israel&year=2001) it has called upon Israel to cease the building of settlements in the West Bank and upon the Palestinians to recognize Israel’s right to exist and to cease acts of violence against civilian populations. When Israel has failed to live up to its highest ideals, the Reform Movement has spoken out with love and concern, while continuing to support and pray for Israel’s security and celebrating Israel’s achievements, and looking toward a future of peace and prosperity for Israel, the Palestinians, and the whole Middle East.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Many of political candidates and leaders seem to have a conservative view of the role of religion in public life. What does our faith teach us about the influence of religion on public policy?
Many of the candidates who won in the recent elections seem to have a conservative view of the role of religion in public life. What does our faith teach us about the influence of religion on public policy?
The whole idea that religion and public policy are separate spheres of life is actually a fairly modern phenomenon. The separation of ‘church’ and state was an American innovation of the late eighteenth century. Certainly it was not a concept known in the ancient Near East, where the rulers were seen as semi-divine and the national gods were seen as the ultimate rulers; or medieval Europe, where the Roman Catholic Church was a major power equal to, and in some ways ruling over, all the crowned heads of Europe. (Witness Henry the Eighth, who saw himself as an absolute monarch in England, until he tried to divorce his wife and found the Church in Rome standing in his way.)
Certainly the ancient Israelites saw no differentiation between God’s law and society’s laws. They were one and the same. Thus, when they were threatened by foreign powers, it was not because of bad public policy of their king’s, it was because they failed to follow God’s laws and God was sending the enemy to punish them. The solution, according to the Prophets, was to go back to strict adherence to God’s law, which meant feeding the poor, helping the widow and orphan, treating the stranger in their midst with justice. (See, for example, Isaiah 58). The ultimate expression of Biblical law setting public policy can be found in Leviticus 19, known as the Holiness Code. According to Leviticus 19, holiness came, not from fasting or prayer or sacrifices, but from leaving the corners of your fields unharvested so the poor can glean the food, having honest weights and measures in business, having honest courts that neither favor the rich nor the poor but judge each case honestly, treating the disabled with dignity and respect, treating the elderly with respect, paying your workers on time, and loving your neighbor as yourself. A pretty good prescription for public policy, isn’t it?
One of the foundations of the Reform Movement is Judaism’s dedication to social justice. The Reform Movement is the only Jewish movement that has a permanent advocacy presence in Washington, DC – the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (www.rac.org). The social justice imperatives that come from our tradition inform the work of the RAC and guide the work of the RAC’s main advisory body, the Commission on Social Action. The RAC engages in advocacy and education on a wide range of public policy issues, from global warming to reproductive rights, from nuclear disarmament to LGBT rights. Every position the RAC takes and every issue it takes on is founded in Jewish teachings and tradition. Further, all the major bodies of Reform Judaism, including the Union for Reform Judaism, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Women of Reform Judaism, and the North American Federation of Temple Youth, all engage in social justice work and advocacy for public policy based on Jewish values.
The difference between social activism in the context of the Reform Movement, versus activism among conservatives or the Religious Right, is that, while some on the Religious Right would like to turn this country into a Christian theocracy, Reform Jews do not wish to impose Jewish law on the country. Rather, we look to Jewish law to inform our positions on questions of public policy and to inspire us to advocate for those policies and positions that most fit our values and beliefs.
Not only is it very possible to bring Judaism into Thanksgiving, in fact Thanksgiving very likely has its origins in the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. Many people believe that, when the pilgrims wanted to celebrate the fall harvest, they looked to the Hebrew Bible for inspiration, and took the idea of the fall harvest holiday of Sukkot as their model for the first Thanksgiving. I think there are many ways we can incorporate Jewish ideas and rituals into our Thanksgiving celebrations. First, it is entirely appropriate to say Ha-Motzi, the blessing over bread, at the beginning of the meal, and Birkat HaMazon, the blessing after a meal, at the end. Giving thanks to God for the bounty of the earth is a very Jewish thing to do, as is spending some time during the meal talking about the things we are grateful for in our lives. Time spent with family and friends reflect the Jewish values of family and community. The pilgrims came to America in search of religious freedom, something we Jews can relate to in a very particular way. This can be a focus of conversation at the Thanksgiving dinner table. It is also a great time to focus on the Jewish value of tzedakah, as many people take time in this season to help out those less fortunate, by volunteering at food banks and soup kitchens, running food drives, and raising funds for Mazon and other organizations that fight hunger year-round.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who has been in a coma from a stroke for five years, is being moved to his ranch in the Negev Desert. How should Jews decide whether to keep family members in similar medical states alive?
Judaism does not allow for euthanasia, even for someone in a comatose state. A person is a person, created in the image of God, regardless of the situation. No distinction is made between a goses, a dying person, and anyone else. The laws of Shabbat are to be set aside to provide medical care for a dying person, just as for anyone else, and one who kills a dying person, even if it is to spare the person pain and suffering, is liable for murder. (BT Sanhedrin 78a; Yad, Hilkhot Rotseach 2:7, M. Semachot 1:4; Yad, Hilkhot Avel 4:5; Alfasi, BT. Mo`ed Katan, fol. 16b; SA YD 339:1). However, there is a difference between providing medical care that actually preserves life, and medical care that has no effect, provides no “cure” or even relief of suffering, and only artificially delays the natural process of dying. To illustrate this point, the Talmud (Ketubot 104a) tells the story of Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi, the great sage, who was dying. His students and fellow sages gathered at his house and prayed night and day on his behalf, thereby delaying his death. Finally his maidservant could no longer stand to see his suffering. She threw a plate out the upstairs window to the ground below, shattering the plate. The praying crowd was startled by the noise and ceased their prayers for a moment and in that moment, Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi died. The Talmud looks favorably upon the maid’s actions, as she interrupted the artificial prolongation of his life and allowed the natural process to go forth.
Ultimately, the sources tell us that we may not do anything that will hasten a person’s death, but by the same token, we may not do anything that will prolong a life beyond its natural time. In other words, we may not engage in active euthanasia such as administering a lethal dose of medication that has no other purpose. However, if the dying person is in pain, it is permissible to administer a dosage that will relieve the pain, even if that dosage will have the effect of ending the life. Similarly, it is permissible to operate on a person to relieve suffering, even if that might shorten the patient’s life. The criterion, the rabbis tell us, is that the primary purpose is to relieve suffering, not to end the life. (# R. Ya`akov Emden (18th century), Mor uKetsi`ah, ch. 328, R. Eliezer Waldenberg, Resp. Tsits Eliezer, v. 13, # 87). By the same token, it is permissible to withdraw medical treatment if it is no longer therapeutic – that is, if it has no possibility of actually doing the patient any good. It is in that case no longer considered medical treatment, but simply an impediment (like the students’ prayers for Yehudah Ha-Nasi) to a natural death.
The question might be asked – ‘does permitting the withdrawal of medical treatment extend to withdrawing nutrition and hydration’? The answer, unfortunately, is not clear-cut. Some authorities, both traditional and modern, come down on the side of considering food and water to be normal and necessary aspects of human life, whether healthy or ill, and it is immaterial how it is administered. Others, however, consider the fact that it is artificially administered to mean that it is a medical intervention, and can therefore be removed. (R. Moshe Feinstein, Resp. Igrot Moshe, CM, v. 2, # 74, sec. 3; See Nishmat Avraham, YD 339, pp. 245-246; Avraham Steinberg in Sefer Asya 3 (1983), p. 448; R. Immanuel Jakobovits in HaPardes 31:3 (1957), pp. 18-19. Among Conservative thinkers see R. David Feldman, Health and Medicine in the Jewish Tradition (New York, 1986), p. 95, and R. Avram Reisner in Conservative Judaism 43:3 (1991), pp. 52 ff.) Ultimately, while the preference would be not to remove feeding tubes, the decision has to be made on a case by case basis, with the wishes of the family, in consultation with the doctors, being the final determination.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: The Harry Potter films revolve around the struggle between good and evil. How far does our faith allow us to go in the fight against evil?
The new Harry Potter film opens later this month. The series revolves around the struggle between good and evil. How far does our faith allow us to go in the fight against evil?
I think it is important first to define what you mean by ‘evil’. Since you ask the question in the context of the Harry Potter series, I’m guessing you are thinking of ‘evil’ in terms of forces that are attacking you, your country, your society, in order to destroy them. In this understanding of ‘evil’, Judaism does not give a direct answer to this question, but we can look to related issues and extrapolate from there. If we look at Jewish teachings about war, we can approach an understanding about how to fight against evil. There are two kinds of war – compulsory war and discretionary war. Compulsory wars were those fought against enemies who attacked the Jews. Amalek is included among the nations against whom such a war should be fought. The Amalekites are said to have attacked the Israelites who were escaping Egyptian slavery. The Amalekites attacked the Israelites from the rear, where the women, children, old and infirm would have been, and therefore are especially accounted in Jewish tradition as the embodiment of evil. Thus war against them was obligatory, to the point that God commanded that they be wiped off the face of the earth, every last one of them. On the other hand, there are discretionary wars – wars of conquest to increase land and power. These are permitted, but not encouraged. Rather, we are commanded to pursue peace (Psalm 34:15), and kings had to appear before the Sanhedrin and make the case for war and get their assent before war could be waged. Indeed, King David was denied the right to build the Temple in Jerusalem because he was a man of war (I Chronicles 22:8). However, defensive wars may be fought, even to the extent of preemptive wars to prevent attack, as long as it is clear and proven that such an attack is imminent. In any case, even in commanded war, we must try all means of diplomacy first to try to avoid war, and if war cannot be avoided, we must exercise mercy whenever possible, minimize as much as possible danger to civilian populations, and fight only in self-defense or for legitimate military purposes. (See CCAR Responsum “Preventive War” at http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/respdisp.pl?file=8&year=5762).
If, however, you are thinking of ‘evil’ in terms of an individual who is evil, then we have to look at the Jewish concepts of the yetzer ha-tov and yetzer ha-ra – the good inclination and the evil inclination. Every human being is born with both of these aspects to his or her personality. The yetzer ha-ra is not really ‘evil’ in the sense we tend to think of ‘evil’ in Christian theology – as something dark and wicked, violent, dangerous, and depraved. Rather, the yetzer ha-ra is that part of us that drives us to creativity, procreation, ambition, success in life. If you allow the yetzer ha-ra to get out of control and dominate the yetzer ha-tov, than that can lead to greed, jealousy, violence. It is up to each one of us to overcome and control our yetzer ha-ra and maintain the appropriate balance between it and the yetzer ha-tov. This is a life-long struggle and the major occupation of every human being to do for him/herself. (See The Birth of the Good Inclination by Jeffrey Spitzer, )
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Today, in Israel, there is a question of the law as seen by the Rabbinate as opposed to the Knesset. I refer to the book, "Torat Hamelech". I believe the stated rabbinical position would be the end of Israel. What is the position of the Orthodox rabbinate of North America? The Conservative rabbinate? The Reform rabbinate?
Today, in Israel, there is a question of the law as seen by the Rabbinate as opposed to the Knesset. I refer to the book, "Torat Hamelech". I believe the stated rabbinical position would be the end of Israel. What is the position of the Orthodox rabbinate of North America? The Conservative rabbinate? The Reform rabbinate?
I must confess, until I received this question, I had never heard of “Torat Hamelech”. However, a quick search found several articles about it. Let me clarify a few misperceptions inherent in the question as it was asked. First, while the title of the book includes the word Torah, and could be translated as “The Law of the King”, “torah” in this context does not mean “law” in the sense of civil laws adopted by a state or country’s legislature that is enforced by the police and the courts. Rather, in this context, it means opinions and interpretations of a particular rabbi regarding Biblical teachings and Jewish religious (not civil or secular) law. It does not have the force or effect of civil or secular law. It is just one rabbi’s interpretations and theological teachings. Nor is this particular book the product of the Israeli Rabbinate. It is one rabbi, writing from his own right-wing, fundamentalist viewpoint. Some ultra-Orthodox rabbis have supported him, or at least defended his right to write whatever he wants. However, more moderate Modern Orthodox rabbis have condemned him and his supporters’ for their defiance of Israeli law in failing to comply with an order to appear before the police for questioning. An excerpt from the Jerusalem Post article about this is below:
“However, the Forum of Modern Orthodox Movements, representing liberal national-religious groups such as Ne’emanei Torah Va’avodah, the Religious Kibbutz Movement, Kolech and others, said it was “very concerned over the rabbis’ petition and the convention in support of not appearing [for] police questioning over the Torat Hamelech book.”
“The rabbis’ participation in the convention might be perceived by the public as a show of support for the content of Torat Hamelech, which could lead to dangerous actions,” the forum said in an announcement at the beginning of the week.
“Israel’s rabbis are subject to the laws of the state, as are all of Israel’s citizens, and that obligation also bears the halachic significance of dina demalchuta dina [the law of the state is law]. So such insubordination [of refusing police questioning] can also be considered a halachic transgression,” the announcement read. “The message of such a refusal is that some citizens are above the law and in some instances, citizens can take the law into their hands, which can unsettle the foundations of democracy and the regime of the State of Israel.”
As far as I know, no official organization of the American Reform Movement has issued a statement about this book. However, I am certain that any member of the Reform movement, rabbi or lay, would be appalled at this horrific tome and deplore its inherent incitement to violence. In these days when peace is so tantalizingly on the horizon, I pray that fundamentalists and radicals on all sides be seen as the minority they are, and that the majority voices for peace and cooperation prevail!
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Is circumcision absolutely necessary for baby boys?
The official position of the Reform movement is that circumcision is the essential sign of the covenant and thus baby boys should be circumcised. A Reform responsum on this point can be found at:
However, this is not without controversy. Medical opinion has varied over the years as to whether there is any medical benefit to circumcision. A pamphlet from Kaiser Permanente lays out the medical pros and cons of circumcision. You can find it at http://www.permanente.net/homepage/kaiser/pdf/3558.pdf .
Feminists in the past objected to circumcision, or more specifically to the Brit Milah ceremony, as it implies that only boys can be admitted to the covenant, since only boys undergo circumcision. Over the years various ceremonies have been developed by Jewish feminists to address this issue, either by mirroring the Brit Milah ceremony (leaving out the surgical aspect, of course) or by creating new rituals to welcome baby girls into the covenant. See http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Newborn_Ceremonies/Liturgy_Ritual_and_Customs/For_Girls/Planning.shtml
Bottom line – while the Reform movement encourages and expects that baby boys will be circumcised, ultimately the final decision has to reside with the parents as to what is right for them and their child. For more information on the circumcision controversy, pro and con, see the websites of the following organizations:
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: How can I politely, yet firmly, explain to Christians that their faith does not supercede mine; the Hebrew Bible is not merely the "Old Testament" and that Jews are not simply Christians without Jesus?
I am concerned with Derekh Eretz (proper behavior), but also with clearly stating the validity of my views and beliefs.
Q: How can I politely, yet firmly, explain to Christians that their faith does not supersede mine; the Hebrew Bible is not merely the “Old Testament” and that Jews are not simply Christians without Jesus? I am concerned with Derekh Eretz (proper behaviour), but also with clearly stating the validity of my views and beliefs.
I’m not sure it is necessary to engage in a debate or a lengthy explanation about Jewish beliefs and why Jews different from Christians. If you are talking about Christian evangelists who try to proselytize you, I don’t think there really is any point in engaging with them at all. You aren’t going to change any minds. All you can do is for them to respect your beliefs and leave you alone. If you are talking with friends who truly want to understand Judaism, you could refer them to a classic book on the subject, Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver’s Where Judaism Differed: An Inquiry into the Distinctiveness of Judaism. It gives a good, general, overview of basic Jewish beliefs, organized topically. It also would probably be helpful to you, to give you some guidance on how to explain Judaism to those who are interested.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Is an "unveiling ceremony" (of a headstone in a cemetery) required by Jewish law - rather than by Jewish custom?
Is an unveiling ceremony (of a headstone in a cemetery) required by Jewish law – rather than by Jewish custom?
Tombstones are mentioned in the Bible. Jacob marked Rachel’s tomb (Gn. 35:20), and the graves of kings seemed to be marked (II Kings 23.17; l Mac 13.27). The Talmud talks about the purpose of tombstones being to honor the dead and to warn priests of the presence of a grave, so that they did not accidentally come into contact with dead bodies. (M. Mo’ed Katan 1.2; Tos Ohalot 17.4). The responsa of the Middle Ages indicated that tombstones were customarily placed on every tomb and that tradition was followed by Joseph Caro (Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 89.1; Yoreh Deah 348.2). In a CCAR responsum on unmarked graves, this history was discussed, and it was noted that “In the later tradition tombstones became mandatory (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 348.2; Even Haezer 89.1; Greenwald Kol Bo al Avelut 370 ff). By the nineteenth century this minhag had become universal and was considered an essential part of each funeral (Abraham Benjamin Sofer Ketav Sofer Yoreh Deah 178).” In other words, tombstones themselves, much less unveiling ceremonies for tombstones, are a matter of custom, not halakhah. However, they have become so universally observed as to have the force of law, if not the actual legal requirement.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: How strict is the Mitzvah of kavod av v'em? In other words, how much "honor" do we owe our parents?
How strict is the mitzvah of kibood av v’am? How much honor do we owe our parents?
This question was addressed in 1982 in a responsum by the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the professional organization of Reform rabbis. The question was in regard to a recently married couple who wondered about the limits of filial duty to one’s parents. The responsum can be found at:
In summary: Honoring one’s parents is so important, it is in the Ten Commandments, and it is one of the few commandments for which there is an explicitly promised reward, for Exodus 20:12 says: 12“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.”
However, there are limits to the law. Genesis 2:24 says brides and grooms must leave their parents to stick to their new spouses. Fathers traditionally were in control of their daughters, including deciding who their daughters would marry, and yet they were admonished not to force their daughters into marriage against their will. Parents’ wishes are expected to be consulted about where their adult children live, but if the children’s economic security depends on moving away, then that is what they should do.
Overall, children are expected to look after their (aging) parents’ physical and emotional needs, but not to the extent of sacrificing their own well-being. A balance must be found between the competing needs of the generations, but the final decision tends to favor the needs of the younger generation.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Times are tight, and I’m trying to tighten my belt a little bit regarding my finances. Am I still required to give tzedakah when I’m having tough times of my own?
Do I have to give tzedakah even in difficult economic times?
When the recession hit, the Central Conference of American Rabbis (the professional organization for Reform rabbis) asked its Committee on Justice and Peace to pose questions to the Responsa Committee about issues around the economy and tzedakah. One of the questions posed was whether an individual was still obligated to give tzedakah, even in these difficult times.The answer was an unequivocal Yes. (http://ccarnet.org/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=1890&destination=ShowItem)
Giving tzedakah is a mitzvah, both in the literal sense of a commandment, and in the colloquial sense of a good deed.The CCAR Responsum says it best:
Tzedakah is a Mitzvah. As we have indicated, Jewish tradition defines tzedakah as a mitzvah, a religious duty. As the Shulchan Arukh, the most authoritative compilation of the traditional halakhah, formulates the rule: “Every person is obligated (chayav) to donate tzedakah.(Shulchan Arukh Yoreh De`ah 248:1) This applies even to the poor person who himself is supported by tzedakah; he is obligated to donate from the amount that is provided to him.”…..The word chayav, “obligation,” places tzedakah in the category of actions that the individual has no choice but to undertake. It is a chovah, a duty, and not a free-will gift of the heart. Although it is certainly better to give tzedakah willingly and happily (as befits the fulfillment of a mitzvah) than in an attitude of reluctance (that would testify that we are helping the poor against our will),5 we frequently remind ourselves that the Hebrew word tzedakah means “justice” and not “charity”: if justice is an obligation that demands our compliance, whether we like it or not, then so is tzedakah.
The responsum further elaborates that a vow to give tzedakah is a promise made to Heaven, and cannot be retracted.(B. Rosh Hashanah 6a (based upon Deuteronomy 23:24); Yad, Matanot Aniyim 8:1; Shulchan Arukh Yoreh De`ah 257:3.)On the other hand, one is not expected to impoverish himself in giving tzedakah. Each must give according to his or her means.If a person is himself so impoverished that he cannot support himself, he is not obligated to give. (B. Ketuboth 50a and Shulhan Arukh Yoreh De’ah 249.1)
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: A friend of mine committed suicide. He was not Jewish; I've heard that Christianity teaches that those who committed suicide will go to hell. What does Judaism say about it?
First let me say how sorry I am for your loss. The death of a friend is always painful. When the death is by suicide, the grief is often compounded by so many other emotions. I hope you, and his other friends and family, are able to find comfort in memories of happier times.
Your question speaks to two issues in Judaism – Jewish views about suicide, and Jewish beliefs about the afterlife. First let us look at what Judaism has to say about suicide. There is no prohibition against suicide in either the Bible or the Talmud. A post-Talmudic work on mourning and funeral laws, called Semachot or Evel Rabbati, prohibits funeral and mourning rites for someone who has committed suicide. (See http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Death_and_Mourning/Contemporary_Issues/Suicide.shtml )
The passage in Semachot further elaborates that if you find a body hanging on a tree, you cannot assume it was suicide unless witnesses saw him climb the tree and heard him say he was doing so in order to kill himself. Further, a child who commits suicide is not held liable and denied funeral rites, because he clearly was not of sound mind. Thus it is clear that one must be of sound mind and announce his intentionality beforehand, in order for the prohibitions to take effect. The Shulhan Arukh, the definitive code of Jewish law, cites the prohibitions, and yet also says, "We seek all sorts of reasons possible to explain away the man's action, either his fear, or his pain, or temporary insanity, in order not to declare the man a suicide." In a responsum from the Central Conference of American Rabbis (the Reform rabbis’ professional organization) written in 1959, the Responsum Committee concluded that full funeral rites should be given, except a eulogy, but even that can be done if it would cause the family too much grief to have it omitted. (http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/respdisp.pl?file=89&year=arr)
This brings us to the question about hell. Judaism does not really have a concept of hell as Christians do. There are various views of the afterlife in Judaism, as with so many things. In broad strokes, when someone dies, the soul spends 12 months or less in Gehinnom, undergoing purification. What that means is entirely unclear, but most sources do not believe in hellfire or torment. It’s more like a way-station on the way to eternal life in Gan Eden – Paradise, where righteous souls spend eternity. More broadly, Jews tend to talk about the World to Come, which could be synonymous with Gan Eden, or could mean the perfect world that the Messiah will bring. The basic concept is that righteous deeds earn you a place in the World to Come, while sinners will lose their place. So sinners do not suffer eternal torment in hell, as in Christian theology, but do not earn a place in the World to Come or Gan Eden. In terms of someone who commits suicide, some sources might have said that person loses his place in the World to Come, but that might have been something that was said in order to discourage someone from committing suicide, particularly in difficult times in Jewish history when the authorities might have wanted to discourage acts of martyrdom. In the end, Judaism really has no definitive opinion on this question. Ultimately, Jewish views on the afterlife remain vague, as most authorities preferred to focus on how we behave in this world, and leave the unknown of the next world to its secrets.
Judaism forbids suicide (Talmud, Bava Kama 91b) and does not allow full funeral rites for someone who has committed suicide. Only God can give life, and so only God is empowered to take life away. Rabbinic authorities usually got around this by assuming that one who takes his own life must be mentally impaired, and therefore not responsible for his actions, and so full funeral rites are allowed even in case of suicide. However, this does not apply to the situation described in the question, where the person is in full possession of his faculties, and makes the considered decision to end his life in the face of a terminal illness.
There are several stories recorded in the Talmud and later rabbinic literature which illustrate Judaism’s opposition to suicide and euthanasia, even in the face of a lingering and painful death. One such story is told of Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradion, who was martyred at the hands of the Romans in the second century CE. The Talmud relates, in Avodah Zarah 17b, that the Romans wrapped him in a Torah scroll and burned him at the stake. Seeing his great pain, his students cried out to him to breathe in the flames and so die more quickly. But he replied, “It is better that God who gave me my life should take it, and I not kill myself.”
On the other hand, Jewish tradition also teaches us that it is not for us to prolong life beyond its normal course. The story is told of the end of the life of the great sage, Rabbi Yehudah Ha-Nasi. His colleagues and disciples were gathered in the courtyard of his house, praying for him. He was dying slowly and in great pain, but the prayers of his followers were keeping him in this life. Finally, a maidservant took pity on him. She broke a plate in the courtyard, startling the men at prayer and disrupting their prayers just long enough to allow his soul to slip away. (Ketuvot 104a)
From these and other stories we learn that we should neither artificially hasten, nor artificially prolong death. With this in mind, the Reform Movement recognizes that sometimes it is appropriate to refuse extraordinary measures to preserve a life beyond the point of meaningful life, and even to remove devices which are artificially maintaining a life that would otherwise come to an imminent end.
We come back now to the original question, which seems to indicate a person who is terminal, but not imminently about to die. Can that person make the considered decision to end his life before the disease progresses? The answer to this must be no. Rather, the patient is counseled to seek and take advantage of the best of medical and palliative care, in order to be as comfortable and pain-free as possible. Hospice care should be widely available to help ease the end of life, and the patient must be treated with dignity and respect. We urge people to make Living Wills and Advanced Medical Directives, to lay out clearly what type of care the patient does and does not want. But to take direct action to end one’s life is not permitted.
The Reform Movement has several very good resources to help patients and their families deal with these very difficult end-of-life issues. First is a book called A Time to Prepare, revised and edited by Rabbi Richard Address. From the Union for Reform Judaism website: “Newly revised, A Time to Prepare is both an source of information and a workbook to help consolidate and record all the information you or your loved ones will need to handle critical illness or death. Topics include: durable power of attorney; organ donation; wills; ethical wills; rituals for saying "good-bye", and more.” (http://urjbooksandmusic.com/search.php?mode=search&page=1).
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: My grandmother and my grandfather were both Jews. They left Germany to escape the Holocaust and went to Brazil. My mother is not a Jew and my dad studied at a Catholic school. Am I considered a Jewish person?
According to traditional Jewish law, a person is considered to be Jewish if his or her mother is Jewish. However, the Reform Movement declared, through a resolution of the Central Conference of American Rabbis passed in 1983:
“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,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.”
In other words, parentage, whether the mother or the father, is a necessary, but not a sufficient, requirement for that person to be considered Jewish. In addition to having at least one Jewish parent, the person must also demonstrate that he or she identifies positively and exclusively as a Jew. Such a demonstration could be through adherence to the mitzvoth, through affiliation and attendance at a synagogue, through participation in Jewish education, or a variety of other ways.
The situation outlined in the question is somewhat more complicated. As far as I can determine from the way the question is worded, the situation is one of a person whose paternal (as it seems) grandparents were Jewish, but whose mother is not Jewish and whose father does not self- identify as Jewish. It can be assumed, therefore, that the questioner was not raised in a Jewish home, with Jewish education or Jewish practices.
When the Reform Movement passed its resolution on patrilineal descent, its Responsa Committee was asked a question which sheds some light on this situation. The question and answer are below:
39. Patrilineal Descent and a Questionable Background*
QUESTION: A young man who grew up in England was a child of a mixed marriage and now wishes to marry an American Jewish girl. His father was Jewish and his mother was Anglican; both are deceased. The father was affiliated with the United Synagogue and the youngster believes he was ritually circumcised (berit milah) and named in the synagogue, although no formal record of this exists. He has had virtually no Jewish education. What is his status as far as we are concerned? We should note that the couple intends to settle in England. (A. D., New York, NY)
ANSWER: We base our decision on the resolution of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, March, 1983, and the responsum "Patrilineal and Matrilineal Descent." The Resolution reads:
"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."
As this young man can produce no evidence that he was ritually circumcised and named in the synagogue, and as he has had no Jewish education nor been involved in any subsequent acts which would affirm his Jewish identity, we would require conversion on the part of this young man as the affirmative way of establishing his Jewish identity.
October 1983”
In the Responsum question, the person was the child of an identifiably Jewish father. And yet his status as a Jew was rejected by the Responsa Committee, because he himself had taken no positive, affirmative steps in his life to demonstrate a Jewish identity. In the case of our questioner, neither parent is identifiably Jewish, nor can we determine if he or she has taken any steps to identify as a Jew. Therefore, the Reform Movement would not consider this person to be a Jew. If he or she wishes to identify as a Jew, a formal process of study and conversion must be undergone.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: What is the Jewish view on "don't ask, don't tell" and gays serving openly in the U.S. military? Does it matter that gays serve openly in the Israeli military?
What is the Jewish view on "don't ask, don't tell" and gays serving openly in the U.S. military? Does it matter that gays serve openly in the Israeli military?
The Reform Movement has a long history of support for civil rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. This includes the right of our LGBT citizens to serve in the military. The Central Conference of American Rabbis addressed this issue specifically in a resolution (http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/resodisp.pl?file=military&year=2006) passed in 2006 in support of Jewish chaplains and military personnel. In this context, the resolution stated:
“ …….Our concern for the religious needs of Jewish members of the U.S. Armed Forces extends to those who are gay or lesbian. Our Reform Movement has staunchly opposed discrimination against gays and lesbians, and we have never supported the U.S. Military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Indeed, excluding chaplains who may be gay or lesbian may violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as it restricts faith groups such as ours, which openly ordain gay and lesbian clergy, from commissioning chaplains from among the full ranks of their clergy……”
Among the action items in the resolution was included this section:
“ THEREFORE, the Central Conference of American Rabbis resolves to:…..
….4. Continue to advocate for the end of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the U.S. Armed Forces, including but not limited to gay and lesbian Rabbis and Cantors who may serve as chaplains. “
As Congress has been moving toward repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, the Reform Movement’s Religious Action Center issued the following statement:
“Reform Movement Applauds Steps Toward "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Repeal
Pelavin: “We must no longer allow prejudice to deprive our nation of the skills and commitment of talented men and women.”
Contact: Kate Bigam or Rebecca Katz
202.387.2800 | news@rac.org
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 28, 2010 — In response to both the U.S. House House of Representatives’ vote and the Senate Armed Services Committee’s decision to move forward with repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, Mark Pelavin, Associate Director of the Religious Action Center, issued the following statement:
We welcome last night’s long-overdue votes in both the Senate Armed Services committee and the House of Representatives to overturn “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” following a Pentagon review of the policy. Yesterday’s action, undertaken with the support of the White House and the Pentagon, reflects the urgency and seriousness of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and the detrimental impact it has on our soldiers and our nation’s security. The 16-year-old policy, which was originally presented as a “compromise” that would respect servicemembers’ privacy and meet our military’s needs, has instead forced gay and lesbian servicemembers to live their lives in secret, always at risk of losing their ability to serve our country.
As Jews, we are guided by the very basic belief that all human beings are created b’tselem Elohim, in the Divine image. Regardless of context, discrimination against any person is inconsistent with this fundamental belief, for the stamp of the Divine is present in each and every one of us. The Reform Movement has long been outspokenly supportive of efforts to end discrimination against gays in the military; for several years, the RAC housed the Campaign for Military Service, a major organization dedicated to these efforts.
Regardless of sexual orientation, those Americans who risk their lives to serve our country and defend America’s freedom deserve our utmost gratitude and respect. Yesterday’s House action is a step toward creating a more just and compassionate military; we must no longer allow prejudice to deprive our nation of the skills and commitment of talented men and women.”
While I have seen opinion pieces in the mainstream press that cite the practice of the Israeli army as evidence that having LGBT soldiers serve openly does not impede morale, I have not seen that cited in Reform Jewish sources as a reason to support repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Rather, the more compelling reason to support our LGBT brothers and sisters is simply that every human being is created in the image of God and, as such, is deserving of all the respect, dignity, and human rights as every other human being, including the right to serve our country.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: What are the "theological" views of Chabad?
I think Rabbi Finman's response is the best way to answer this question. As he suggests, please see www.chabad.org.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: What is Judaism's view on the current same-gender marriage debate? Is Judaism completely against homosexual relationships? Is it for only civil unions? Is it for complete marriage?
The Reform Movement’s views on same-sex marriage have evolved over the last twenty years, although the movement has always been committed to full equality and civil rights for all peoples, regardless of sexual orientation. In 1977, the Central Conference of American Rabbis passed a resolution calling for legislation decriminalizing homosexual activity between consenting adults, and prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals. In 1993, the Union for Reform Judaism (then called the Union of American Hebrew Congregations) called for legal recognition of gay and lesbian relationships. By 1996, the CCAR was calling for legal recognition of civil unions, although the resolution made a point of differentiating between calling for civil unions, and calling upon rabbis to officiate at religious ceremonies. (seehttp://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/resodisp.pl?file=gl&year=1996http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/resodisp.pl?file=gl&year=1996). This step was, at this point, still seen as moving further than the organization as a whole was willing to go.
However, it did not take much longer. The CCAR put together an Ad Hoc Committee on Human Sexuality, and this committee issued a report in 1998, affirming that "kedushah may be present in committed same gender relationships between two Jews and that these relationships can serve as the foundation of stable Jewish families, thus adding strength to the Jewish community." The report recommended that the CCAR support rabbis who wish to perform same-gender religious ceremonies, and that educational materials be created to help rabbis and congregations learn about the issue. In March of 1999, the Women’s Rabbinic Network called upon the CCAR to bring this issue to the membership for a resolution, and thus, in March of 2000, the CCAR passed a resolution saying “that the relationship of a Jewish, same gender couple is worthy of affirmation through appropriate Jewish ritual” and supporting rabbis who perform such rituals. (see http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/resodisp.pl?file=gender&year=2000http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/resodisp.pl?file=gender&year=2000)
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Can Israel be both a democracy and a Jewish state?
Can Israel be both a democracy and a Jewish state?
Israel can, and must, be both a democracy and a Jewish state. These two things together form the essence of Israel. What Israel cannot do is maintain its hold on the West Bank territories and the Arab sections of East Jerusalem, and still maintain its democracy. The only solution to maintaining Israel’s democratic character is to withdraw from the West Bank, dismantle the settlements, and assist the Palestinians in creating their own (hopefully democratic) state. If Israel tries to maintain control over the Palestinian population much longer, without granting them citizenship and equal rights (as Arabs within Israel have) then it will no longer be able legitimately to consider itself a democratic state. But the demographic reality makes it impossible to extend citizenship to the Palestinians and still be a Jewish state. The only thing to do is to allow the Palestinians their own state. The Reform movement has long been a supporter of the two-state solution as the best way to keep Israel both Jewish and democratic. See http://rac.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=4031&pge_prg_id=12499&pge_id=2424 for more information.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: What is the Jewish stand on women praying wearing Tefillin and a Tallit?
Egalitarianism is one of the fundamental beliefs of Reform Judaism. There is no mitzvah, ritual, or custom which is closed to one gender or the other. In the last 100+ years the Reform Movement has been in existence in the United States, it has issued several official documents, called Platforms, which lay out the core beliefs and values of the Movement.
In 1976, at the Centenary anniversary of the American Reform Movement, one such platform was issued (
http://ccarnet.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=41&pge_prg_id=4687&pge_id=1656). In laying out the fundamental teachings of Reform Judaism, this document said, in part, “that women have full rights to practice Judaism; and that Jewish obligation begins with the informed will of every individual.” The two points mentioned in this passage both speak to the question of women wearing talit and t’filin. On the one hand, women are fully equal with men and have every right to practice any and all rites and rituals of Judaism. Therefore, women as well as men are fully enabled to wear any ritual garb they desire.
On the other hand, for every individual, male and female, the adoption of any ritual practice is dependent upon the “informed will” of every person. What this means is, it is incumbent upon every Reform Jew to learn as much as possible about our history and traditions, and then to decide for him/herself what rituals, practices, and customs are meaningful to him/her. That which is meaningful and relevant in our lives, we should observe. That which has lost its relevance in modern times (such as laws or customs which bar women from full participation in Jewish life) should be abandoned.
Throughout the first hundred years of American Reform Jewry, the majority of ritual practices, including the wearing of talit and t’filin, were abandoned as no longer relevant or meaningful in the modern world. The first platform of American Reform Jewry, issued in 1885 and known as the Pittsburgh Platform (
“3. We recognize in the Mosaic legislation a system of training the Jewish people for its mission during its national life in Palestine, and today we accept as binding only its moral laws, and maintain only such ceremonies as elevate and sanctify our lives, but reject all such as are not adapted to the views and habits of modern civilization.
4. We hold that all such Mosaic and rabbinical laws as regulate diet, priestly purity, and dress originated in ages and under the influence of ideas entirely foreign to our present mental and spiritual state. They fail to impress the modern Jew with a spirit of priestly holiness; their observance in our days is apt rather to obstruct than to further modern spiritual elevation.”
However, by the late 20th century, many Reform Jews felt a need to return to some of the traditions and rituals earlier Reformers had abandoned. Some of these traditions were re-imagined, modern rationales were found for them, but in any case, for many Reform Jews, this return to tradition brought a renewed sense of spirituality to their lives. As the 1999 Statement of Principles says (http://ccarnet.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=44&pge_prg_id=4687&pge_id=1656), “We are committed to the ongoing study of the whole array of (mitzvot) and to the fulfillment of those that address us as individuals and as a community. Some of these (mitzvot), sacred obligations, have long been observed by Reform Jews; others, both ancient and modern, demand renewed attention as the result of the unique context of our own times.”
In short, for Reform Jews, there is no barrier to women wearing talit and t’filin. It is, for both men and women, a matter of what practice is most meaningful to them.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
While traditional Judaism does not allow for cremation, Reform Judaism has a long history of permitting it. A Reform responsum dating back to 1891 addresses the question. The responsum can be found in American Reform Responsa, 100. “Cremation from the Jewish Standpoint,” (Vol. II, 1891, pp. 33-40). I will summarize the findings of the Reform Responsa Committee below:
The committee began by reviewing the textual evidence advanced by scholars in support of cremation. Various Biblical texts were advanced that seemed to indicate instances where cremation was used. Some of the texts involved instances where cremation was prescribed as a form of capital punishment for a crime. For example, in Genesis 38:24, Judah orders Tamar to be taken out and burned as punishment for supposed prostitution. Lev. 20:14 and 21:9 similarly prescribe burning as punishment for sexual crimes. Chapter 7 of the Book of Joshua describes the burning of Achan and his family for taking spoils in war that had been forbidden by God. In I Samuel 31:12-13, the bodies of Saul and Jonathan are burned after they had been displayed by their enemies and decomposed.
In all these instances, however, burning seems to be either a punishment or due to exigent circumstances. The norm, though, seems to be burial. Thus, Abraham buys the Cave of Machpelah when Sarah dies, as a family burial site (Genesis 23:4). He himself is buried there by his sons (Genesis 25:9). Similarly, in Genesis 35, Rachel dies in childbirth and is buried in a tomb on the road to Beth El, and Isaac dies and is brought back to the Cave of Machpelah to be buried with his parents. Throughout the Biblical text, from Genesis through Kings and Chronicles, burial is the standard, not cremation. No instance of cremation is noted beyond the unusual circumstances around the death of Saul and Jonathan.
The question, then, is whether burial is a matter of custom, or commandment? The Talmud, in Sanhedrin 46b, indicates that it is a commandment, based on a number of Biblical verses brought forth in an imaginary conversation between a Persian king and one of the sages of the Talmud. In another passage, Sotah 14a, we are reminded that the Bible tells us in Deuteronomy 13:5 that we should walk in God’s ways. What does this mean, the Talmud asks. The answer is, just as God visits the sick, so should we visit the sick; just as God consoles the mourner, so should we console mourners, and just as God buries the dead, so should we bury our dead. This is seen as halakhah (Jewish law) in the law code of Maimonides, through law codes after him.
However, despite this, the final recommendation of the responsum is that rabbis should not refuse to officiate at funerals of those who have been cremated. It is not un-Jewish or irreligious to be cremated, as long as the cremains are treated with respect and the usual rites of mourning are observed.
Today, some Jews feel a special reluctance to cremate, remembering the crematoria of the Holocaust. For this reason, some rabbis may discourage cremation. However, there is nothing in Reform Jewish practice to forbid it.
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.
