All Questions Answered by Rabbi Dr. Michael Leo Samuel
Question: I don't understand why meat and dairy can't touch. Logically, dairy comes from animals, so it already touched. How can this be explained?
[Admninistrator's note: Several other questions already answered touch on this:
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=26
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=39
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=136
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=953 and
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=1122.]
In response to your question, I must be brief because of other time obligations.
The Scriptural law states: “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exod. 23:19).
The law against meat “touching” milk is to intended to prevent the consumption of the two together. To give you a taste (pardon the pun) of what this law entails, here is a brief selection from the Mishnah in Hullin 8:2, which gives some interesting guidelines as to how early rabbinical law was practiced:
And it is forbidden to place it - any kind of flesh -on the same table with cheese, as a precautionary measure, lest it be inadvertently placed with the cheese into a boiling pot (i.e., a kli rishon - "primary cooking vessel used on a stove" that is currently boiling), which constitutes cooking and is forbidden by Torah law. This prohibition includes fowl meat, which is forbidden merely by Rabbinic law. This view follows Bet Hillel's ruling further on in our mishnah, lest animal meat be placed in a boiling pot ("first vessel") together with cheese; this does not constitute the imposition of a precautionary measure upon another precautionary measure (i.e., since the Rabbinic prohibition of eating fowl meat with milk merely aimed to prevent its substitution by animal meat, its extension to placing it on the table would be an imposition of one precautionary measure upon another - tr.), since placing food on the table is tantamount to eating it (Gemara,Rashi); according to Maimonides, placing fowl meat on the table together with cheese was forbidden, lest they be eaten together
As you can see, the rabbis were concerned primarily that someone might cook the two together—not if they might accidentally touch, which only requires washing the meat, or skimming the outer layer of the milk—assuming someone is that determined to drink the milk (yuk!).
As mentioned above, this is only a rabbinical decree and not a scriptural decree, which only prohibits cooking a calf in its mothers’ milk—as interpreted by Philo of Alexandria. The Sages differed and argued that the cooking of any meat and milk together is a biblical precept. Whether that is the case or not is debatable; however, the rabbis wished to keep the average person far away from committing a potential sin. Rabbinical “fences” (decrees) are intended to keep people away from more serious violations of the Torah.
One of the notable Orthodox scholars of the early 20th century, Samuel Belkin of Yeshiva University made some candid questions regarding the history and halachic evolution of this precept:
In the Mishnah Hullin 8:1, we find the undisputed law that no flesh may be cooked in milk. The Hillelites are of the opinion that even fowl may not be served on the table together with cheese or eaten with it. The Shammaites also admit that these foods may not be eaten together. The fact that the Mekiltah Mishpatim endeavors to deduce from the biblical passage that the prohibition against cooking flesh with milk applies also to the Diaspora Jews suggests that they hardly observed it.
The Rabbis did not take this law literally, but they interpreted it as a prohibition against dressing milk and flesh together. The law is called in rabbinic terminology “flesh and milk”( áùø áçìá). This rabbinic interpretation was not known to Philo, but, as Ritter accurately remarks, this Halakah was virtually unknown in Babylonia even as late as the Amoraic period. When Rab heard one woman asking another how much milk is necessary for cooking a portion of meat, he asked, “Is it not known here that dressing milk and flesh is forbidden?”[1]In Alexandria, the biblical law even in its literal form was not observed by all. Philo advises the Alexandrian Jews that if they want to dress flesh with milk, they should at least use some other animal and not a kid in its mother's milk.[2] In Palestine, the prohibition against dressing flesh with milk according to the halachic interpretation seems to have been a standard law during Philo's time.[3]
[3] Samuel Belkin, Philo and the Oral Law: The Philonic Interpretation of Biblical Law in Relation to the Palestinian Halakah (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1940), 22.
.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: This question is based on a question posed to the "Ethicist" column in the "New York Times Sunday Magazine."
My colleague at work spends most of his time posting to the website, Reddit. He could be posting information about his boss or work environment that could jeopardize his employment. In any case, I believe he is too immature and ill suited for our profession. Do I have an obligation to tell him that this behavior could hurt his career?
This question is based on a question posed to the “Ethicist” column in the New York Times Sunday Magazine. My colleague at work spends most of his time posting to the website, Reddit. He could be posting information about his boss or work environment that could jeopardize his employment. In any case, I believe he is too immature and ill- suited for our profession. Do I have an obligation to tell him that this behavior could hurt his career?
A. Prior to your question, I have never heard of Reddit before. However, after looking at the website, it looks like one of the old-fashioned bulletin boards where people post something about themselves or others. The question you raise could probably apply to someone who writes about work on Twitter or even Facebook. Social media websites have made this problem ubiquitous in most business environments—far more than employers are willing to admit. Electronic devices have become a prosthesis for most of us living in the 21st century. Twenty years ago, the futurologist Ray Kurzweil has predicted that within the next couple of decades, man will merge with the machine. Largely, we are already witnessing this phenomenon.
Based on what I have read on this subject, your co-worker is hardly alone. As one professional notes:
There are many activities employees do that waste time at work. Excessive meetings, co-worker interactions, office politics, and fixing mistakes are a few. According to a recent Salary.com survey, one of the biggest culprits is surfing the Internet. Specifically, the survey revealed 64 percent of employees visit non-work related websites every day at work. Of that group, 39 percent spend one hour or less per week, 29 percent spend 2 hours per week, 21 percent waste five hours per week, and only 3 percent said they waste 10 hours or more doing unrelated activities. (My experience as a CEO tells me these figures are probably underestimated.)[1]
Ask yourself the following question: Is it my responsibility to supervise how my fellow co-workers are using their non-work related activities? In my opinion, this is what a supervisor is there to oversee. Otherwise, you risk creating a hostile workspace where nobody trusts their co-workers. On the other hand, you may want to casually mention to the corporation manager that it might not be a bad idea to send out a memo regarding the proper use of office time and Internet usage. If nothing else, it would broadcast in a subtle but effective manner that there will be consequences for people who misuse their time at the office for personal pursuits. Sometimes the fear of losing one’s livelihood is powerful enough of an incentive.
Many corporations install software on suspected computers that monitor websites and even keystrokes that are imputed into the computer. Now, assuming you are on good terms with your co-worker, you may want to try telling your co-worker in a friendly manner that today, spying on our neighbor is no longer the domain of “Big Brother” (e.g., the CIA or the NSA). Today even “Little Brother” has that capability. Beyond that, anyone—regardless of their income—can spy on a spouse or anyone else if they so desire. The loss of privacy in our society has made us more vulnerable to intrusions into our personal space. If you are not on good terms with your neighbor, then you would be wise to not say anything for your behavior may be tainted by an animus that borders on hatred—a clear violation of biblical law that requires us to act with love—not with hatred.
You shall not hate any of your kindred in your heart. Reprove your neighbor openly so that you do not incur sin because of that person. Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your own people. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord (Le 19:17–19).
It seems to me that company managers must bear the ultimate burden of monitoring their workplaces. Doing so not only ensures greater productivity, it also protects their business from people accidentally or willfully revealing information that could prove damaging to their workplaces, not to mention minimizing potential workplace problems such as sexual harassment or employee job performance problems.
In terms of Jewish texts, there are ample texts that speak about taking personal accountability whenever one is working for the public, which I believe also applies whenever we work for anyone. In Exodus 38:21-40:38 (a.k.a., Parshat Pekudei), the Torah begins with a complete inventory of what all the items Moses collected for the Tabernacle. This principle is confirmed when we read how Moses gives an accounting of the raw material brought to the Sanctuary: gold (29 talents, 730 shekels), silver (100 talents, 1,757 shekels), copper (70 talents, 2,400 shekels) etc. The first thing that strikes us is that this seems to be an accountant’s report on Moses’ business affairs. This ought to strike the reader as odd. If Moses, the man who gave the Ten Commandments, isn’t above suspicion, then who is? Was all of this accounting really necessary?” The answer is simple of course! Leaders must be beyond suspicion. This principle pertains to lesser mortals as well.
Oftentimes we define a Tsadik in Judaism as someone who is “righteous” and pious in matters of Jewish law and practice. Yet, the real meaning of tsadik is someone who acts with complete and personal integrity. Saintliness may be for exceptional people, but most people are at least capable of acting honorably and with integrity.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: In the Torah parsha (selection for reading) Yitro, the Torah tells us that Jethro took Moses' wife, Tziporah and their two sons, and sent them home. I once heard a teacher explain in a homiletical way that this was an example of Moses being a bad father. Is there other evidence to support this? Is there evidence to support the opposite?
It is not enough to read the lines of a biblical text; you must learn to read in between the lines as well. Some aspects of a story are only hinted for a reading audience. With a healthy curiosity, one can often sleuth the untold story of a biblical story.
It pays to have the curiosity of a Sherlock Holmes, and here is an interpretation that I believe the great detective would probably have approved.
When God first spoke to Moses about becoming His leader for the oppressed Israelites, he went to his father-in-law Jethro and told him all about the news. In Exodus 4:24-26, we read a short story about Moses’ near-death experience and how Tziporah, Moses’ wife, saved the day by performing circumcision on one of Moses’ sons.
On the journey, at a place where they spent the night, the Lord came upon Moses and sought to put him to death. But Zipporah took a piece of flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and, touching his feet, she said, “Surely you are a spouse of blood to me.” So God let Moses alone. At that time she said, “A spouse of blood,” in regard to the circumcision.
Tziporah’s words might have been a criticism to her husband. Although she was a Midianite, a member of the Abrahamic clan, none of the ancient peoples of the ANE ever practiced infant circumcision—only the children of Israel. Circumcision rites were basic to all the marriage rituals; circumcision of males typically occurred at puberty—the age when a young man would take a wife. Tsiporah had no problem with that tradition. However, she and her father rejected infant circumcision; the Israelite rite seemed excessive and, not to mention, dangerous! Ironically, Tsiporah performs the ceremony—howbeit very reluctantly.
Moses argued that circumcision had to be performed when the child was eight days old (Gen. 17:12). Failure to receive circumcision meant that the boy would be "cut off from his people." God expected that Moses , of all people, must be a leader and practice this tradition openly and proudly.
There is much more to this little interpolation than what meets the eye.
Contextually speaking, Moses’ behavior in Exodus 4:24-26 seems very strange for other reasons. How could Moses entertain the idea of taking his family to Egypt? Egypt wasn’t exactly like Disney Land! This idea does have support in the Midrash. According to the Sages, Jethro tried to convince Moses "We are distressed over the plight of those who are there, why should you bring your family there?" [1]
As a leader of an oppressed people, Moses would have certainly endangered his family had he brought them there with him (Ramban). All of this might explain the reason why Moses or his son took ill. The family illness may have been God's way of keeping Moses's family from having to endure the hardship of slavery in Egypt.
In the end, Moses sends his family home to his father-in-law. Tsiporah most likely felt resentment toward Moses for choosing God over his family. The Sages indicate that when the text later says that Jethro brought Moses’ family out to greet him shortly after the Exodus.
Now Moses’ father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian, heard of all that God had done for Moses and for his people Israel: how the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt. So his father-in-law Jethro took along Zipporah, Moses’ wife—now this was after Moses had sent her back . . . Together with Moses’ wife and sons, then, his father-in-law Jethro came to him in the wilderness where he was encamped at the mountain of God,and he sent word to Moses, “I, your father-in-law Jethro, am coming to you, along with your wife and her two sons.” (Exod. 18:1-6).
Note that Moses does not go out to his wife and children as one might have expected. Jethro takes the initiative and brings about a reconciliation and reunification of Moses fractured family.
All seemed well . . .
Later, in the Book of Numbers, we read about a strange development in Moses’ family.
Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses on the pretext of the Cushite woman he had married; for he had in fact married a Cushite woman. They complained,* “Is it through Moses alone that the Lord has spoken? Has he not spoken through us also?” (Num. 12:1-2)
Who was this mysterious new woman in Moses’ life? Did Tsiporah finally get fed up with Moses for neglecting his family? Did they fall out of love?
Inquiring minds really want to know!
Some of the medieval commentaries like Ibn Ezra and Abarbanel contend that Tsiporah may have died and Moses remarried—and this was something that Miriam did not approve because the Cushite was black-skinned! Rashi and others say that the Cushite was really Tsipporah and Moses had neglected her after assuming the role of leadership. When she heard about young prophets Eldad and Medad, the legend asserts that Tsiporah felt bad about the prophets’ wives. She mused, “Their poor wives will suffer!”
If rabbinical legend is correct, the Midrash teaches us that Moses was a great husband, but a lousy husband and neglectful father. Does it not seem strange how the Torah speaks much about Aaron as a family man, but Moses as a family man is almost completely absent in the Torah narratives about Moses?
Does the story end there? What ever became of Moses’ children? Or for that matter, his grandchildren?
Here’s the rest of the story . . .
Rabbinical tradition argues that Moses’ grandson ultimately became a pagan priest and his narrative is recorded in Judges 17 & 18!
The Book of Judges, Chapters 17 and 18, may hold the key to answering these questions, which speaks about Micah’s idol, which was introduced in the tribe of Dan; he hires a Levite from Bethlehem to become his personal priest (Judg. 17:5-13). In Judges 18:27, the biblical narrator reveals the identity of the Levite mentioned in Judges 17 and he is the grandson of Moses, for according to Exodus 2:22, Gershom is the son of Moses! The biblical scribes deliberately changed the name from Moses to Manasseh, one of the most notorious Judean kings who introduced idolatry during his rule. The superscript letter “n” helps to confuse the reader so that he will not know that Moses’ grandson became a priest to idolatry. Beyond that, the verse concludes, “Both (Jonathan) and his sons were the priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the exile of the land” (Judges 18:30).
All of this goes to prove that even the most excellent of prophet had feet of clay when it came to parenting. One would think that Moses would have deeply impressed his son Gershom to remain as a true son of Israel, and worship YHWH alone—but evidently, his son must have been out playing with the other young Israelite young people. This lesson did not sink in.
May this sobering thought may keep us humble.
The personal life of a spiritual leader—regardless of one’s religion, often places a heavy burden on the family. Jokes made about clergy’s children are proverbial. In the Bible, we discover from the Book of Genesis how family dysfunction affects even the most righteous and pious individuals of the Bible. Just look at the family histories of the biblical patriarchs.
Adam and Eve discovered that parenting was a lot harder than both dared to imagine.
Noah had problems with his three sons.
Abraham and Sarah had problems with their children.
Isaac and Rebekah struggle with their children.
Jacob probably ranks as one of the worse parents in the Bible—eclipsed only by King David.
What about Moses? Was he a perfect parent? Was he a perfect husband? I think he had many of the same issues that modern couples experienced--especially when they are not equally yoked.
Was your teacher correct? I believe he probably was, even though he did not explain how he arrived at his conclusion.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Are the obsessions with money, celebrities and athletes, and maybe even Ivy League education, a form of modern day idol worship? My understanding of idol worship is when human creations or people themselves replace G-d and/or are worshiped as a god, this is idol worship. How do rabbis view idols in the modern sense? What does it mean to avoid worshiping idols?
The subject of idolatry is a fascinating. Before answering your question, it is important to define our terms. The word “idolatry” derives from the Greek words εi δωλολατρεία; , (L. idololatria = adoration) , which comes from the noun εiδωλον (= idol). Hence, it means the worship of images.
Historians of religion have long debated whether the ancients believed that the images housed the spirit of a deity, or whether the statue was said to be alive and animate. In many ancient rituals dating back to Egypt and India, it was customary for the potter to breathe into a vessel to symbolically represent bequeathing unto the idol—new life. Thus, the ancients believed that the image somehow mysteriously and magically participated in the life of the deity being worshipped. Thus, in many of the Mesopotamian and Egyptian records we discover special rituals designed to “open” the eyes of a newly constructed deity; the priest will “wash” its mouth, and so on. The prophet Jeremiah cautioned against those who worship “stones that have no breath in them.” Every man is stupid, ignorant; every artisan is put to shame by his idol: He has molded a fraud, without breath of life (Jer. 10:14).
According to Jewish theological tradition, Maimonides warned generations about the danger of thinking that anthropomorphism (human like personality traits) are an attribute of God. Interestingly, Maimonides felt that wrongful concepts of God can transform even a monotheistic faith like Judaism into an idolatrous cult and fetish.
Some 20th century theologians think that idolatry involves making something that has no existential existence apart from God into something that apart from God. Take money for example, one can easily think that money has an independence and ontology that exists apart from God. The same may also be said of the human ego, for in our wildest imagination we often imagine as though we are “God.”
According to the Hassidic tradition, the Kotzker Rebbi once observed, “ The ‘I’ is a thief – because it takes the partial and mistakes it for the whole. In theological terms, in our search for self-fulfillment, we tend to seek meaningful existence in terms of our own existence and needs—rather than see the world from God’s perspective.
The theologian and philosopher Paul Tillich once defined religion as “man’s ultimate concern.” This rather ambiguous definition has a certain amount of elasticity. For many people, their ultimate concern might be the possession of power over others—that is what they live for. For others, it might be the acquisition of wealth—and that is what they live for. Each of these things by itself is not necessarily bad unless the pursuit of these things overwhelms one’s relationship with the Divine.
In capitalistic societies, we frequently see the exploitation of workers, of the environment, and the lusting toward unlimited profits at the expense of the consumer. Political philosophies can also promote idolatrous attitudes whenever government tries to usurp the power of God as the center of people’s spiritual lives. According to Jewish tradition, man does not live on bread alone—he is a creature who must find spiritual contentment through the worship of God. Idolatry can occur whenever people fail to pay attention to the deeper human and moral issues that are at stake, such individuals risk worshipping the works of their hands and ego.
One of the ways the Tanakh helps us avoid this mistaken attitude is by tithing from our best to God. Tithing teaches us that the world does not belong to man; we are merely God’s steward of the Divine treasure and are responsible to God alone for how we use our prosperity.
Even great people after their death have frequently been worshipped as deities. In the Torah, nobody knows the burial spot of Moses; God wanted to make sure that nobody would come to worship Moses as a substitute for God. Yet, in the history of paganism, holy people have been venerated with rituals that ought to be exclusively given to God.
Over the last two and a half decades, the Lubavitcher Hasidim visit the tomb of their late Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schnersohn and ask him to intercede on behalf of his followers. If Maimonides were living in the present, he would have condemned such acts of devotion as idolatrous[1] Similarly, the Hasidim in the Rebbe’s headquarters re-enact rituals of handing out sacred dollars to the Hasidim—as though the Rebbe were physically among them. Conferring celebrity status to any human being is dangerously close to treating that person as a god. Some of the Hassidic teachers have historically believed that their Rebbe was the body of God in this world (!).
I often thought that the Rebbe of Lubavitch—and rabbis in general, regardless of their denominational labels—could greatly benefit from the Eagles’ famous song, “Take it Easy.”
Well I’m a runnin’ down the road
Tryin’ to loosen my load
I’ve got seven women on my mind
Four that wanna own me
Two that wanna stone me
One says she’s a friend of mine
Take it easy, take it easy
Don’t let the sound of your own wheels
Drive you crazy
Lighten up while you still can
Don’t even try to understand
Just find a place to make your stand
And take it easy
The moral of this song is especially important for any kind of leader—religious or secular. We are not the movers and shakers of the world that we sometimes think we are. As human beings—each of us has a gift to offer the world. However, the world will never revolve around the human ego. The universe is God-centered and not human centered.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: The Chofetz Chaim (of blessed memory) states that a Torah written by a heretic must be burned. At an economic loss of $15,000 upwards, is it permissible ethically and according to Jewish values to make full disclosure of the defects of such a Torah, and sell it under those conditions to a Conservative or Reform (or any) congregation that is in need of one? It is assumed that the text of the Torah itself is without error or shmad (heretical defect).
Thank you for writing to me about your concern. Now, let us take a look at the issues you raise.
Part 1: Defining the Problem
There are many issues and presumptions that you make in your question that are in my opinion, dubious in nature. For example, you presume that a Torah written by a “heretic” “ought to be burned.” However, you never define “Who is a heretic?” Just as the “Who is a Jew?” is a debate, so too is the question, “Who is a heretic?” Still and all, you never defined your terms and such assumptions can only lead to erroneous conclusions that are not warranted by the Halacha. Given the political nature of Judaism today, I must question whether it even proper to assert that “Reform” or “Conservative” rabbis are justly considered “heretics” because of their alleged “heretical” views.”
Historically, unlike Christianity that posits proper belief is essential for salvation, Judaism has historically been more concerned about “Ortho-prax,” proper religious behavior rather than the matter of “Orthodox” (“correct opinions”). According to Webster’s Dictionary, “orthodox derives from the Latin orthodoxus, Greek ὀρθόδοξος; ὀρθός right, true + δόξα opinion, δοκεῖν to think.” Webster goes on to add.
Sound in opinion or doctrine, especially in religious doctrine; hence, holding the Christian faith; believing the doctrines taught in the Scriptures;—opposed to heretical and heterodox; as, an orthodox Christian.
According or congruous with the doctrines of Scripture, the creed of a church, the decree of a council, or the like; as, an orthodox opinion, book, etc.
Approved; conventional.
As you can see, the very term that many “observant” Jews use to define themselves reflects—ironically and paradoxically—Christian influence. One might even say that many observant Jews today are oblivious to the Christianization of Judaic belief; throughout Jewish history, no one solitary rabbinical scholar has ever had the authority to speak “ex cathedra,” so to speak. (Please pardon my pun.) Pluralistic interpretations are essential because "The Torah has seventy facets" (Numbers Rabbah 13:15-16).
Part 2: The Talmudic Origin of the Law Regarding the Heretic’s Torah
Before going any further in answering the other halachic issues you raise, I think it is important to examine the origin of this particular halacha, which derives from the Talmudic tractate Gittin 45b:
R. Nahman said: We have it on tradition that a Torah scroll that has been written by a Min should be burnt, and one written by a heathen should be stored away.
In the interest of brevity, we need to define what exactly is meant by the term “min” and after we define this term, we need to determine whether one may apply “min” to anyone who happens to be a non-Orthodox rabbi or a member of a non-Orthodox synagogue.
According to the Soncino Talmud (which was written by Modern Orthodox scholars led by R. Isadore Epstein), the term “min” refers specifically to “either a heathen bigot or fanatic.” The reason that a Torah written by a pagan is forbidden to read is because the “Torah scroll may have been written for an idolatrous purpose.”
R. Adin Steinsaltz explains that the “heretic” in the Talmud probably refers to someone who was a member of the Christian faith. Since the element of intentionality is significant and has profound halachic importance whenever the scribe writes any of the Divine Names, we fear that the Jewish Christian scribe most likely associated God’s Name with Jesus and the Trinity.[1]
The Jerusalem Talmud [2] lists that twenty-four types of minim (heretics) existed in the first and subsequent centuries that followed the destruction of the Second Temple. Alleged heretical beliefs included many types of belief:
(1) Anyone who denies God’s unity.
(2) Dualism in all of its forms (Gnostic, Trinitarian, or Zoroastrian)
(3) Denial of Providence
(4) Denial of Israel’s mission to the world
(5) Denial of salvation
(6) Denial of Resurrection
(7) Denial of a Messianic Redeemer or Messianic Age[3]
Maimonides himself viewed minut as atheism, or anyone who denied the existence in the theological doctrine of creatio ex nihilo “creation from nothing”) or the notion that man requires an intermediary to worship God (MT Hilchot Teshuva 3:7).
Contrary to many Talmudists—both ancient and modern—there is an impressive list of Jewish thinkers who rejected the belief in creatio ex nihilo and argued that bara does not necessarily mean “creation from nothing.” Ibn Ezra and even Maimonides both felt that creatio ex nihilo need not necessarily be implied by the verb bara. The 15th-16th century Jewish philosopher, R. Josef Albo concluded that creatio ex nihilo is not a fundamental principle of the Torah.
Maimonides’ own views are far more nuanced than one might realize for he himself did not really believe in physical resurrection—a point that many of Maimonides’ greatest critics suggested. If you wish to familiarize yourself with this discussion, see Marc B. Shapiro’s brilliant book, The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles Reappraised (Portland Or; Littman Library, 2004), pp. 71-78; 132-157. Any Orthodox person reading this book must come to the inevitable conclusion that beliefs have always varied throughout Jewish history and that any attempt to create a Procrustean theology that consists of one voice is wrong-headed and foolish. [4]
Part 3: The “Heretic’s Torah Scroll”
It is astounding in my view how any responsible Orthodox thinker could think that profiting from a “heretical” Torah scroll is considered permitted—especially when one can make a tidy $15,000 profit selling such a scroll to a “heretical” place of worship such as a Conservative or Reform synagogue. One gets the distinct impression from your original letter that whenever there is a profit to be made, one can sell anything to the “heretic,” for all money is kosher.
Such an attitude is not God-centered, but it is mammon centered.
Halacha provides an interesting analogy to our situation: A person is forbidden by law to sell a forbidden unkosher mixture of meat and milk, or for that matter—any forbidden substance to a Jew. Aside from the fact that one is placing “a stumbling block before the blind” (Lev. 19:14). With regard to your original question, it seems to me that you have no right—ethical or religious—to financially benefit from a Torah scroll that you consider to be defective by selling it to members of a “heretical” Jewish community. The very use of such terminology when used regarding Jews of different beliefs is potentially incendiary and divisive; such attitudes lead only to more sinat hinnum.
Since Conservative or Reform Jews and their rabbis are clearly not the heretics that the Talmud was originally speaking of. I suggest to you that it is permitted to sell a defective Torah scroll provided you inform the purchaser that it needs repair. Heresy is a complete non-issue here. In short, under no circumstances should you burn the Sefer Torah. If its errors cannot be corrected, I suggest you give the Torah to a skilled scribe who knows how to repair it.
Notes:
[1]Peter Schäfer’s new book, Jesus in the Talmud, takes umbrage with the old Christian view that asserts “min” to be invariably “Christian,” whenever it appears in the Talmud.
[4] Incidentally, Shapiro completely demolishes the responsa of R. Moshe Feinstein who alleges that all Conservative and Reform rabbis are "heretics" and that it is even forbidden to answer "Amen!" to their prayers. See Igrot Moshe YD Vol.1, Responsa 172; OH Vol. 4: 91. Like Rabbi Schnersohn and R. David Bleich, R. Feinstein believed anyone who rejected Maimonides' Thirteen Principles was and is a "heretic."
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: What is Tu b'Av? Do we celebrate it today? What is the significance of the day?
Question: What is Tu b'Av? Do we celebrate it today? What is the significance of the day?
The summer holiday of Tu B’Av (the 15th of Av) is a rabbinical holiday, one that the Mishnah describes in colorful detail:
Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, “There were no happier days for the Israelites than the fifteenth of Ab and the Day of Atonement.”
During those days, the daughters of Jerusalem went out in borrowed white dresses— so as not to shame those who owned none . . . And the maidens would go out and dance in the vineyards.
What did they say?
“Young man! Look around and see—choose what you want! Don’t look for beauty, look for family: Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord will be praised (Prov. 31:30).” And it says, Give her of the fruit of her hands and let her works praise her in the gates (Prov. 31:31).
During this dancing festival, men and women celebrated the grape harvest. It is remarkable such a day comes so soon after the 9th of Ab, the saddest day of the Jewish year. The 15th of Ab strongly suggests that the cure for exile lies in the power of love. The connection between the 9th of Ab and the 15th of Ab is as follows: think of the 9th of Ab like a pending divorce between God and Israel, whereas the 15th of Ab represents their spiritual reconciliation. Indeed the destruction of the Temple is analogous in many ways to the destruction of the nuclear home that occurs whenever two people divorce one another.
The 15th of Ab represents the willingness to start life anew, hence its imagery in rabbinical literature intimates forgiveness and renewal.
When looking at the Jewish folk traditions surrounding the 15th of Ab, it is always interesting to find parallels in other cultures—past and present.
For example: In Greek mythology, the father of Atalanta wanted his daughter to get married.
It so happened that Atalanta happened to be one of the greatest huntresses of her day; she was quick, and her mastery of the bow made her famous for she had won prizes in hunting and wrestling.
Atalanta really had no interest because she had served the virgin goddess Artemis. However, reluctantly, she agreed to honor her father's request—but on one condition: she would agree to marry only if one of her suitors could outrun her. She even gave them a head start, only to kill them when she passed them. Her father, King Schoeneus agreed. Unfortunately many of the possible suitors, they were killed until one young man, Hippomenes came along and asked the goddess Aphrodite for assistance. She gave him three apples and instructed him to leave an apple behind for Atalanta, and that is how Hippomenes won her hand in marriage.[1]
From a modern perspective, the 15th of Ab bears a striking resemblance to Sadie Hawkins Day. In the Li'l Abner cartoon series, Sadie Hawkins was the daughter of one of Dogpatch's a fictional place) earliest settlers, Hekzebiah Hawkins, said to be the “homeliest gal in all them hills”, she grew frantic waiting for suitors to come a-courting her. After she became 35, her father became increasingly anxious. In desperation, he called together all the unmarried men of Dogpatch and declared it "Sadie Hawkins Day" (which happened to occur on Feb. 29th, during a leap year). In a special foot race, Sadie caught up to one of the town's eligible bachelors—and her days as a spinster were over.
The Talmud records other traditions and legends associated with this day. Historically, the tribes were allowed to intermarry with one another after the tribal boundaries been fixed and established (BT Bava Bathra 121a-b). Some say on this auspicious day, the Tribes of Israel finally allowed the Benjaminites to marry other tribes after nearly being exterminated by their brethren over the incident of Giveah. For many years, no tribe was allowed to marry anyone from the tribe of Benjamin (see Judges 21:18).
One rabbinical tradition records that on the 15th of Ab, the Romans allowed the Jews to marry the remains of the Jewish soldiers in the Betar fortress. Legend has it that the bodies of these fallen warriors did not decay.
In response to your original question, this much may be said: In general, many Jewish singles groups throughout the Jewish communities scattered around the world often have get-togethers on this day.
Notes:
[1] Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 3. 9. 2 for Atalanta and 1.8.3 for the Boar Hunt.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: I have been self employed for over 6 years and have been trying to find full-time work that would provide me a consistent cash flow. I am a Conservative Jew born to Orthodox parents. I mention all of this background because I have a company who is about to make me a job offer; however, they are in the business of manufacturing crab cakes. Would it be wrong for me to work for a company that produces non-kosher products even though I try to maintain a kosher life style for myself? I truly could use the job assuming an offer is made to me, but I am worried that this would be viewed as unethical or immoral. Can someone let me know what Judaic Law says about such actions?
[Administrator's note: some related questions on JVO can be found at:
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=944
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=847
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=444
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=850]
I have been self-employed for over 6 years and have been trying to find full-time work that would provide me a consistent weekly cash flow. I am a Convservative Jew born to Orthodox parents. I mention all of this background because I have a company who is about to make me a job offer; however, they are in the business of manufacturing Crab Cakes would it be wrong for me to work for a company that produces Non-kosher products even though I try to maintain a Kosher life style for myself? I truly could use the job assuming an offer is made to me, but I am worried that this would be viewed as unethical or immoral. Can someone let me know what Judaic Law says about such actions?
Answer:
You ask an interesting question.
The Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) in Chapter 117 of Yoreh Deah deals the restrictions of selling non-kosher food. As a rule, one may not derive financial benefit when selling non-kosher food. The rationale behind this proscription is to prevent the Jewish person from eating it. The Talmudic Encyclopedia frequently reiterates that anything that is not physically consumed by the person, is not in the category of benefiting from a forbidden foodstuff.[1]
However, this rule does not apply so long as he never takes actual physical possession of the forbidden food.[2]
One of the more interesting questions centers on whether a Jewish person can work as a cook and serve non-kosher food for a gentile. Indeed, this case is somewhat analogous to a Jewish salesman who works for a company that sells treif, or other non-kosher foods—and this would be analogous to your own situation with respect to working for a crab company.
Such problems have arisen in the past generations, since employment has always been a chronic problem for the poor Jews of Eastern Europe. Several Halachic scholars (but certainly not all!) are lenient about this given the scarcity of jobs for Jews.[3]
Rav Moshe Feinstein allowed someone to take a job that involved transporting non-kosher meat.[4]
After reading your original question, it was unclear whether you were working as a computer programmer, or as a marketing professional. Even if you were an actual salesman, the only restriction I can foresee is not directly selling the product to a Jewish nursing home or some other Jewish institution.
Best of luck,
Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel
====
Notes:
[1] Talmudic Encyclopedia Vol. 1. S.v. Ain Isur Chal al Siur.
[3] Cf. the Responsa of Chavolim B’nimin 2:46 , Maharsham 1:126, and Levushei Mordechai 4:215who are lenient, see also Darchei Teshuva 50 to Yoreh Deah.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: I have a question concerning sexuality: My wife likes harder sex and other things like that from time to time (but nothing extreme). What to do?
On a lighter note, I could recommend you follow the advice that God told Abraham:whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you . . . (Gen. 21:12). On a more somber and realistic note, it’s important to have a frank discussion about this issue with your wife.
For those who are unfamiliar with this subject, here is a brief introduction that will attempt to explain the complexity of this widespread phenomena that exists in Western societies. According to psychologists, sadomasochism involves the giving and/or receiving of pleasure—often sexual—from acts involving the infliction or reception of pain or humiliation. The psychology of sadomasochism is complex. Part of a person’s psychology sometimes seeks submissiveness, or dominance. One could say that S&M views relationships and sexual intimacy in terms of power and control that influence much of people’s social behavior. In homes where a female often plays a submissive role, a female may choose to act out her fantasy of being dominant in a sexual relationship, or the reverse for a man.
While the terms sadist and masochist specifically refer to one who either enjoys giving pain (sadist), or one who enjoys receiving pain (masochist), many practitioners of sadomasochism will alternate between these two modalities of behavior.
Jewish law does not always spell out every kind of sexual situation. We deduce laws based upon comparisons and sound reasoning. In general, Maimonides discusses the manner in which engages in sexual intimacy in the section entitled, The Laws of Forbidden Relations:
Since a man’s wife is permitted to him, he may act with her in any manner that he desires. He may be intimate with her in any manner he desires. He may kiss any organ he desires,[1] engage in vaginal or anal intercourse or engage in physical intimacy without relations, provided he does not release seed in vain. Nevertheless, it is considered pious behavior for a person not to act frivolously concerning such matters and to sanctify himself at the time of intimacy, as explained in Hilchot Deot. He should not depart from the ordinary pattern of the world. For this act, was given solely for the sake of procreation.[2]
Would Maimonides approve of wearing a black blindfold, or a little slapping of the posterior? Probably not–because he feels that this would not add to the sanctity of lovemaking. However, Maimonides acknowledges that fantasy can have a role in a healthy relationship so long as one fantasizes only about one’s beloved (fantasizing about anyone else is morally wrong; nor should he have sex if he plans on divorcing her, or if he is angry with her, see MT Isurei Bi’ah 21:12).
Since a man and woman may make love any way they like, it seems to me that the lighter non-violent forms of S&M may conceivably be permitted according to this way of reading Maimonides.
There is a second rabbinical source also worth considering. Rabbi Akiba and Ben Azzai (ca. second century CE) argue on a topic that comes very close to this specific issue:
What is the greatest precept of the Torah? Rabbi Akiba argues that it is the precept, You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18).[3]
Ben Azzai said:This is the list of the descendants of Adam. When God created humankind,he made them in the likeness of God (Gen 5:1). Do not say, “Since I have been put to shame, let my neighbor also be put to shame, for if you do so, know that you are shaming someone who is made in the likeness of God.”[4]
Based on this rabbinic controversy, one could say that Ben Azzai would oppose S&M since certain people might enjoy receiving pain; however, this does not entitle such a person with obvious masochistic tendencies to inflict his “pleasure” unto others—especially when it pertains to the relationship and a husband and wife have in the bedroom!
I would add that many psychologists think that sadistic and masochistic fantasies usually begin in childhood, and the disorders usually manifest in early adulthood. When associated with antisocial personality disorder, psychologists agree that it may result in serious injury to others or even death.
Ergo, hardcore S&M is definitely out of the question. Some lighter forms of S&M may be permissible. I must confess, for me this subject has little appeal, but here are some basic guidelines I suggest you and your wife discuss together.
Tying someone to the bed is probably fine so long as the ropes or twine does not leave marks in the skin. Whips and chains are definitely unacceptable. As is always the case, sexual intimacy must be consensual and based on that paradigm, anytime a person feels uncomfortable with a fantasy of S&M, the role-playing must end. I would also add that couples engaging in milder forms of S&M should keep a respectful distance from the S&M community, for what goes on in the bedroom must stay in the bedroom and not beyond. Limits must be defined and respected at all times. Such an attitude will obviously not mesh with much of the secular S&M culture, but Jewish ethics always demands that we treat one another compassionately and lovingly in the act of lovemaking.
In short, fantasy does have a place in sexual intimacy—a fact that Maimonides acknowledges, so long as one fantasizes only about one’s beloved. Fantasizing about anyone else is morally wrong; nor should he have sex if he plans on divorcing her, or if he is angry with her (MT Isurei Bi’ah 21:12).
Therefore, it seems to me that consensual and playful S&M does not violate the norms of Jewish tradition—provided one does not get carried away with fantasy and remember the Other is never an object, but a feeling and responsive human being.
Notes:
[1] Tur and Ra’avad disagree, cf. Beit Shmuel’s notes to Even HaEzer 25:1. Some of the medieval Kabbalists believed that a man having oral sex with his wife would go blind if he gazed and kissed her vagina. Maimonides makes no such distinction.
[2] On a critical note, we do not agree with Maimonides view that sexuality is only for the purpose of siring children. Were that the case, older couples would not be able to marry. The need for human intimacy is just as important as having children; marriage is suitable for adults of any age.
[3] Love your neighbor doesn’t mean you must “feel fond of him” or “like him.” But rather, love your neighbor like you love yourself.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: I would like to invite my son’s girlfriend to accompany us on a vacation. They are twenty-year-old college students. There will be three adult mothers and their young adult children all-staying in the same five-bed room rented house. My son’s girl friend is the only person who will not have a parent along for the trip (the girlfriend's parents are not part of the trip).
Is it appropriate for a young Jewish woman to be invited in this circumstance, or is asking her placing her in an improper situation? I must add that both of these young adults are smart, mature people and wise well beyond their years. What does Judaism say about this?
Thank you for your insight.
This is an interestingquestion I did not expect to receive.
I seenothingwrong with your son’s girlfriendattending your familyvacation get-together. Theonlyconditions I would insist as a parent is thatsheand your sonsleepseparatelyandrefrain from publicdisplays of affection. Modesty is an importantvalue in Jewish tradition. Unfortunately, we are living in an overly permissivesociety that gives a rubberstamp to just about anykind of behavior.
Since other children are going to be present, I thinkit is importantthatboth your sonand his girlfriendact with thehighestdegree of personal comportment. Theotheradults can serve as theyoungwoman’s chaperon. Therefore, I seenothingwrong with her accompanying providedthesegroundruleshavebeenestablishedahead of time.
Have a nice vacation!
Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: There seems to be a tension between the Jewish mitzvah (commandment) concerning marriage (and subsequently being fruitful), and the concept of love (specifically romantic love, as defined in terms of western thought and literature). In times and places where arranged marriages are/were the norm, this was not a concern, but in modern day America, it seems to be a live issue. Is it the view of Judaism that it is more important to marry to fulfill the commandment - even if one does not love that mate, or should one not marry without love even though the mitzvah seems clear that it is obligatory? What does Judaism say, not only halachically (in Jewish law), but ethically and in terms of Jewish values?
Answer: In some ways, your question reminds me of the famous dialogue between Tevya and Golde in Fiddler on the Roof. Tevya asks Golde the famous question: Do you love me? She responds:
Do I love you? With our daughters getting married and this trouble in the town You’re upset, you’re worn out Go inside, go lie down! Maybe it’s indigestion.
Tevya: “Golde, I’m asking you a question…”Do you love me?” Golde finally responds, “For twenty-five years I’ve washed your clothes, cooked your meals, cleaned your house, given you children, milked the cow. After twenty-five years, why talk about love right now? . . . Do I love him? For twenty-five years I’ve lived with him Fought him, starved with him. Twenty-five years my bed is his If that’s not love, what is?”
In Mark Twain’s short story, “The Diary of Eve,” the author narrates how Eve grated upon his nerves while they were in Eden. Although they were in Paradise, Paradise was not in them. In the beginning, Adam find’s Eve’s presence and personality obnoxious. After they leave Eden, only then do they come to discover real love for one another. After Adam survives Eve, he writes on her tombstone, “Wherever Eve stood—there was Eden.” Mark Twain captures the essence of the primal couple in a way that is unique and precious.
· PRACTICAL TALMUDIC ADVICE
The Talmud in Tractate Kiddushin says something very important. Although a man may marry a woman through a proxy that he has never seen before, the sage Rav expresses some practical rabbinic wisdom teaches that he must at the very least see her, lest he subsequently discover something repulsive in her that he will find loathsome and violate the biblical commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18).[1] The principle behind Rav’s practical advice is extremely valuable for all young people contemplating marriage in the Orthodox community in particular. If all you are interested in is fulfilling a mitvah, my advice to you is simple: Don’t get married. Your question reminds me of something I once studied in the Responsa literature decades ago with respect to divorce.
The scholar observed that although there is a precept in the Torah pertaining to divorce, it is not necessarily a precept that one should run in order to fulfill such a “mitzvah.” The “mitzvah” of divorce only applies when the relationship cannot be salvaged for a variety of tragic reasons, e.g., spousal abuse—only then, is it a mitzvah to be considered and fulfilled when therapy and nothing else seems to work.[2] I would therefore have to say that the same principle works in reverse with respect to marriage. It is only when you are really attracted to a person on many emotional and spiritual levels—only then is it a “mitzvah” to get married. Otherwise, you are not being honest to yourself—and especially to another human being you are supposed to love. This is the wisdom of Rav’s statement in the Talmud that you must seriously consider.
Many years ago, a congregant once received an unexpected visitation from a Chabad rabbi in the hospital where he was recovering from an operation. After he arrived, the rabbi enthusiastically said, “Shalom Mr. So-and-so, I’m here to do the mitzvah of visiting the sick!” The man gently said to him, “If you are here to visit me because you are concerned about my well-being, then fine–stay. If you are here merely to fulfill your desire to do a mitzvah, then please leave. I want only someone who is truly concerned about my welfare to see me. I do not wish to see someone who is trying to score points with God.” This anecdote ought to apply to anyone who is contemplating marriage.
PART 2
You seem to think that romantic love is not only the product of Western literature, e.g., the love story of Tristan and Isolde or, Romeo and Juliette. There are numerous passages in the Tanakh that stress the importance of desire and attraction which ought to be part of any budding relationship that could lead to marriage.
Rebekah, too, was looking about, and when she saw him, she alighted from her camel. And she asked the servant, “Who is the man out there, walking through the fields toward us?” “That is my master,” replied the servant. Then she covered herself with her veil. The servant recounted to Isaac all the things he had done. Then Isaac took Rebekah into his tent; he married her, and thus she became his wife. In his love for her Isaac found solace after the death of his mother Sarah” (Gen. 24:64-67).
It appears that each of them felt a great attraction and chemistry for one another. Remember, there is a good reason why the Genesis stories stress the importance of love at first sight. It is obvious that the biblical patriarchs and matriarchs were not merely interested in fulfilling a mitzvah when they met one another. Sexual attraction is necessary; without it, the world would be bereft of children. However, spiritual values are no less important because they enable two young or older people to endure the various trials and tribulations that marriage inevitably brings.
Take the case of Jacob and Rachel for example:
Then Jacob kissed Rachel and burst into tears.He told her that he was her father’s relative, Rebekah’s son, and she ran to tell her father (Gen. 29:11).
Later on in the same chapter we read,
“So Jacob served seven years for Rachel, yet they seemed to him but a few days because of his love for her” (Gen 29:11).
On the other hand, if you are willing to make the necessary symbolic sacrifices to give of yourself to another human being, then you will discover that marriage can be an enjoyable experience life has to offer.
Attraction is not always based upon physical chemistry; there ought to be other qualities as well. Marital love is extremely important and it needs to have attraction, values, respect and other qualities to survive. Without these qualities, a marital relationship is apt to becomemartial relationship that is full of strife and disharmony.
Two souls with but a single thought,
Two hearts that beat as one.
—MARIA LOVEL, Ingomar the Barbarian, II
======
Notes:
[1] BT Kiddushin 41a.
[2] By the same token, there is no precept to brings an atonement sacrifice for sin; it is only a precept if the person sins. However, if he never sinned, there would be no requirement to bring a sacrifice. Sometimes there are implicit principles that govern the corpus of many biblical laws, e.g., the precepts regarding marriage and divorce.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Is revenge or vengeance permissible in Judaism? Has the view of this changed over time?
You ask a difficult question and the answer is far from simple. Numerous laws and passages proscribe revenge and vengeance. Conversely, revenge plays an important role in rectifying injustices that occur. The men and women of the Tanakh were far from perfect people; quite often, they took matters into their own hands—but not without serious consequences.
In the interest of time, here is a sketch I have spent the last few hours organizing.
Part 1: Famous Biblical Stories about Revenge and Mayhem
After Jacob died, the brothers feared that Joseph would exact vengeance upon them for having mistreating him in the past. They come up with a ruse, “‘You shall say to Joseph, Jacob begs you to forgive the criminal wrongdoing of your brothers, who treated you so cruelly.’ Please, therefore, forgive the crime that we, the servants of your father’s God, committed.” When they spoke these words to him, Joseph broke into tears. Then his brothers proceeded to fling themselves down before him and said, “Let us be your slaves!” But Joseph replied to them: “Have no fear. Can I take the place of God? (Gen. 50:17-19).
When the Midianites induce the Israelites to worship idols, God commands Moses to “execute God’s vengeance upon them (Num. 31:3).
In the biblical narrative of Dinah and Shechem, the brothers plot revenge because of Shechem and Dinah’s illicit love affair. In the end, Dinah’s brothers exact a bloody revenge and murder all the male members of the town of Shechem (Gen 34f.). Jacob condemns the brothers’ murderous ruse (Gen 34:30).
Likewise, in Amnon’s rape of Tamar (2 Sam. 13:22) Absalom plans his revenge and later murders his half-brother, Amnon, thus triggering a series of events that nearly destroys David’s kingdom.
Toward the end of David’s reign, the Gibeonites exact revenge upon the family of Saul, who nearly wiped out the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21:1-9). David reluctantly complies to their request because of God’s disapproval of Saul’s behavior. Without exacting vengeance, David’s kingdom would have perished from the famine.
David curses Joab and his father’s house for the act of blood revenge for having murdered Abner, and orders that Abner be buried in Hebron. The entire kingdom mourns for Abner because David wished to demonstrate that he had nothing to do with the death of this valued hero (2 Sam 3:31–39). Before David dies, he leaves instructions to his son Solomon to execute Joab, whose crimes against Abner and Amasa must be carried out and Shimei, son of Gera, the Benjaminite of Bahurim,(1 Kgs. 2:5-9).
Summary: As you can see, revenge is carried out in brutal manner; sometimes it occurs with the endorsement of God. However, at other times, human beings unilaterally exact revenge for personal reasons. Only Joseph acts with complete nobility of spirit and personifies the ideal model for forgiveness.
Part 2: Important Biblical Passages Regarding the Dangers of Revenge
Several biblical verses criticize people who give in to their impulse for revenge:
You shall not bear hatred for your brother in your heart. Though you may have to reprove your fellow man, do not incur sin because of him. Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your fellow countrymen. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD (Lev. 19:17-19).
For vindictive is the husband’s wrath, he will have no pity on the day of vengeance (Prov. 6:34).
The mercies of the wicked are cruel (Prov. 12:10).
Rejoice not when your enemy falls, and when he stumbles, let not your heart exult, lest the LORD see it, be displeased with you, and withdraw his wrath from your enemy (Prov. 24:17).
This latter verse illustrates that even the emotional satisfaction derived from another’s misery is considered sinful; a person is responsible for allowing these dark emotions to control one’s heart and conscience.
Part 3: Revenge and Vengeance—Theological Considerations
The problem of revenge becomes more complicated when one considers that the Torah sometimes describes refers to God as “vengeful.”
I will sharpen my flashing sword,
and my hand shall lay hold of my quiver.
“With vengeance I will repay my foes
and requite those who hate me.
I will make my arrows drunk with blood,
and my sword shall gorge itself with flesh—
With the blood of the slain and the captured,
Flesh from the heads of the enemy leaders.”
( Deut. 32:41-42)
Yes, this passage makes one wonder: If vengeance is inappropriate for human beings, why is it appropriate for God? It is important to remember that the purpose of God’s vengeance is not predicated upon a desire to “get back” at the sinner; it is inextricably related to the process of Divine justice. Evil people are answerable to God’s justice; without this attribute, the moral order collapses. Humankind is ultimately responsible for combating the forces of evil and injustice that exist in its society. Here is another way of viewing this passage.
No person has the right or prerogative to act as God’s agent for retribution—even if the offending party deserves it. Sometimes God acts as on behalf of individuals against their enemies.[1] God also protects the nation of Israel against its enemies.[2] Nevertheless, God sometimes acts a avenger against Israel: he promises to avenge the blood of his servants and prophets against those who slay or oppress them[3], and he avenges himself against his people when they break his covenant[4]. In Isaiah, the prophet often speaks about God’s “day of vengeance”[5], when God’s justice ultimately prevails.
Part 4: Biblical Precepts involving Revenge
One of the most interesting precepts involving revenge is the “Avenger of Blood.” In an age when there was no strong centralized government, the Torah allowed the next of kin to kill the slayer who was guilty of purposeful manslaughter, but not in the case of accidental manslaughter—provided the killer remained within the confines of the Cities of Refuge (Num. 35:11). Revenge, in this case, provided a practical purpose: just because there is no court to exact punishment, do not think the family will allow itself to be trifled with. If one lives in a lawless society or a society where the rule of law is weak, revenge provides serves to help preserve the social order.
Part 5: Revenge in the Interpersonal Sense
English terms like “revenge” or “vengeance” convey a meaning that is different from similar Hebraic terms. The English word “revenge” derives from the Old French revengier,[6] which in turn derives from the Latin verb vindicare, “to lay claim to, avenge, punish.” In contrast, the verb “avenge” implies the administration of just punishment for a criminal or immoral deed. In the popular sense, revenge tends to convey the idea of retaliation a bit more strongly and implies real hatred as its motivation.[7]
According to the Book of Leviticus, we find:
You shall not bear hatred for your brother in your heart. Though you may have to reprove your fellow man, do not incur sin because of him. Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your fellow countrymen. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD (Lev. 19:17-19).
The Sages give an example: If a person asks his neighbor to lend him a utensil and the neighbor refuses, he may not hold a grudge against him. If the neighbor later comes and asks him for a tool, he may not get back at him and say, “Just as you refused to lend to me, I am not going to lend to you.” If one does this, he is in violation of the precept, “Do not take revenge" (BT Yoma 23a).
As you can see, taking revenge or bearing a grudge are symptoms of a much greater problem, namely, the root of all cruel behavior–human hatred. Recognizing its existence is essential if we are to succeed in preventing its manifestations. In terms of the verse’s contextual meaning, the Torah often speaks in terms of generalities before giving specifics. Thus, the verse speaks in general terms, “You shall not bear hatred for your brother in your heart.” Now what exactly does “hatred” mean? (1) the failure to criticize a neighbor when s/he does something wrong; (2) revenge; (3) bearing a grudge—these examples derive from a heart that nurtures hostility toward the Other. Of course, there are many other examples one can give, but ultimately it all boils down to the precept of love—“love your neighbor as yourself.”
[Judaism has always viewed love as a verb and not as a noun. To love another person is to act considerately toward the other person’s wellbeing and property—as one would want for oneself.]
Eliminating hatred from the heart is far from easy, but if expunging hatred from the heart is not possible, we can at least make the conscious decision not to allow its manifestation in deed. “Actions mold character” (Sefer HaHinuch, Introd.), i.e., not by thoughts or feelings per se, but by actions.
When you come upon your enemy’s ox or ass going astray, see to it that it is returned to him. When you notice the ass of one who hates you lying prostrate under its burden, by no means desert him; help him, rather, to raise it up” (Exod. 23:4-5).
Performing noble actions and acting virtuously toward an estranged person goes a long way in transforming the problematic relationship. Kindness allows the feeling of sympathy to overcome one’s primitive impulses of hatred.
The Talmud goes so far as to say that if there is a choice between helping one’s enemy’s animal vis-à-vis helping a friend’s animal who is in need, one must first help one’s enemy.[8] There are two reasons for this: (1) helping one’s enemy influences the individual to act in a humane and caring way that serves to dislodge the hatred he carries in his heart toward him. (2) By relating to one’s adversary in the spirit of love, the bonds of brotherhood are tangibly affirmed.
The Torah, therefore, asserts that it takes greater self-control and discipline to help an adversary rather than a friend with whom one is willing to help. Helping a friend seems much less of a chore. Philo of Alexandria anticipated this thought expresses the same idea in lucid terms and argues that the purpose of this precept is to instill virtue. Philo adds:
“When you come upon your enemy’s ox or ass going astray, see to it that it is returned to him . . .” (Exod. 23:4). It follows that just as the shadow follows the body, it is inevitable that an act of kindness will serve to dissolve human enmity. A person who receives a benefit has an inducement to make peace for the future, for he is beholden by his neighbor’s act of kindness. The conferrer of this kind deed has paved the way for an eventual reconciliation. This is the goal of the holy code of laws: studying them creates unanimity, fellowship, and agreement—all of which serves to confer upon humankind the maximum happiness possible.[9]
Notes:
[1] Judg. 11:36; 1 Sam 24:12; 25:39; 2 Sam 4:8; 16:8.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: I was wondering. I've heard different things from different people, and was told a lot of different opinions. In Judaism, among Jews, what is considered as 'losing your virginity', particularly for a girl? I've always viewed it to be when a girl's hymen is broken by a man in a sexual act, but some people have been telling me otherwise. So my question is, 'What constitutes 'losing your virginity' for a girl?' What would change her status from 'virgin' to not?
Rabbinical texts argue that so long as the hymen remains intact, the young woman is still regarded as a virgin. The term áÀÌúåÌìÈä (bĕtûlâ) is derived from the rare verb áúì (bĕtal), which means, “to sever,” or “separate”).
Being a virgin is not limited to any specific age—one could theoretically be a 70 year old virgin. I recall once hearing a joke from an Arab comic who said that a suicide bomber expects to have seventy virgins in the Afterlife. Once he is there, what he really discovers is that Allah gives him only one virgin, who happens to be seventy years old!
Some scholars take a different attitude and claim that áÀÌúåÌìÈä (bĕtûlâ) means a “young unmarried girl.” Other cognate languages of the Ancient Near East support such a rendering. However, in Joel 1:8, the bĕtûlâ means a “young woman” who has already had a husband. According to this definition, one could not be a 70 year old virgin.
What if she only had anal intercourse or oral sex, could she still be considered a virgin? One might argue that touching a young maiden in any sort of sexual way might disqualify her "maiden" status. For example: Rebekah is praised for being “was very beautiful, a virgin, untouched by man” (Gen. 24:16). Rabbinical tradition adds that the term “untouched” means exactly what it says—she did not act out in any sexual way or manner (see Rashi’s commentary and the Midrash Gen Rabbah 65:6).
In all honesty, biblical interpretation and rabbinical law don't always agree with one another.
Maimonides writes about this kinky situation. According to him if ten men had anal sex with a maiden, they could all be summarily executed by stoning—assuming she was betrothed at the time of her liaisons. However, her virginal status still remains in place! [1] Lastly, it seem based on Maimonides (and some other rabbinical sources) that if a maiden acted promiscuously and had non vaginal sex with a several men—she could still be considered a virgin according to the Halacha.
The fact that something is "legal" doesn’t mean it is a correct course of action to pursue. It is unfortunate that so many men view sex as a purely physical activity bereft of emotional bonding and meaning. Many young women (and women in general) confuse sexuality with love; they are not synonymous. It is far better for a woman to save her virginity for that one special person whom she truly loves. If a man cannot recognize the unique human being a woman truly is, he is not worth dating or marrying.
Notes:
[1] Maimonides, MT Issure Biah 3:6.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Does Judaism have any thoughts on press issues such as the Wikileaks fiasco? In Jewish thought, when does freedom of the press and the public's right to know become a security threat?
This issue has come up again recently with the arrest and trial of Julian Assange, and other leaks of other government documents from various sources. What does Judaism say about this?
You have asked a great question! Healthy human relationships are predicated upon a principle of trust. Whenever someone tells you something of a personal nature, it is with the understanding that you will not violate that confidence. Whether a person is a physician, lawyer, or clergy—the world of interpersonal relationships requires that people treat one another in a trustworthy manner. The same principle applies to nation states as well.
When examining the question of revealing secrets, the ancient Judaic philosopher named Ben Sira offered these practical remarks almost 2200 years ago.
Cursed be gossips and the double-tongued, for they destroy the peace of many. A meddlesome tongue subverts many and makes them refugees among the peoples. It destroys walled cities, and overthrows powerful dynasties. A meddlesome tongue can drive virtuous women from their homes and rob them of the fruit of their toil. Whosoever heeds it has no rest, nor can he dwell in peace. A blow from a whip raises a welt, but a blow from the tongue smashes bones. Many have fallen by the edge of the sword, but not as many as by the tongue. [1]
Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks is an Internet organization that specializes in revealing the hidden secrets most governments prefer to keep hidden. His website began in 2006 and it has produced over 1.2 million documents. There is hardly a country anywhere that has not been embarrassed in one manner of another.
Halachic literature has much to say on this topic. The Talmud mentions that when someone reveals a confidential matter to another, it should not be disclosed unless the person it involves gives express permission [2].
* Early Halachic Discussions
In the early medieval period, Rabbanu Gershom (ca. 9th century) decreed that anyone who reads the mail of another is subject to excommunication [3]. The principle applies no less to stealing trade secrets as well. According to another Talmudic passage, respecting one’s personal privacy applies no less to the people living in one’s home! R. Akiba warned his son, “My son, don’t even suddenly enter your own home, and certainly not the home of your fellow, without any forewarning.” [4] Some midrashic texts suggest this is why the High Priest used to wear bells on his garments so that his arrival might not frighten the priests while they were carrying out their priestly duties.
But is revealing information always forbidden? Not necessarily. Sometimes one has a moral imperative to discover confidential information when the evidence is necessary for preventing a serious crime. [5] This applies no less to opening a letter is considered permitted when the intention is to prevent a crime from taking place.[6]
* The Slippery Slope
This depends upon the circumstances. Jonathan Pollard revealed information to Israel about Sadaam Hussein’s plan to build a nuclear reactor. This was information that the United States State Department was legally bound to share with Israel, but chose not to. Israel used the information to destroy the nuclear reactors, but Pollard is serving a life sentence for committing “treason,” when in reality he was guilty of spying for a friendly nation.
In the end, Pollard’s disclosure probably saved millions of lives from being harmed. There are shades of gray that are not easily discernible. If the information being conveyed serves a positive purpose as it did in the Pollard situation, a case could be made that revealing such information is permitted and even necessary.
On the other hand, if one’s motivation is merely to embarrass a country’s leaders, then the motivation is vindictive in nature and can only cause ill feelings between nation states. Gratuitous truth telling can be very dangerous to innocent people and the Wikileaks information has resulted in the death of innocent lives. Such behavior is immoral and Julian Assange is responsible for the unintended moral consequences of his disclosures.
The ancient philosopher Buddha expresses a similar thought, “Words have the power to destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.”
Notes:
[1] Ben Sira 28:13-18
[2] BT Yoma 4b. However, the great early 20th century moralist, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, a.k.a. “Hafetz Hayyim” went one step further—one must not even reveal potentially damaging information even when it is about oneself either.
There is a famous story of how the Hafetz Hayim was once riding on a train to the city of Minsk and across from him sat a young rabbinical student, who was studying the Hafetz Hayim’s famous ethical tract on the Laws of Gossip. Unbeknownst that he was sitting next to the author of the book, they started chatting with one another. The young man said, “The famous Hafetz Hayim is a brilliant Sage!” The old pious rabbi demurred, “I don’t think he is particularly brilliant.” The young man countered, “Not only is he brilliant, he is also extremely pious!” The old sage demurred once again, “I personally know him, and I can personally attest he is not so ‘pious.’” The young student got angry and slapped the old rabbi in the face, “How dare you insult the Gadol HaDor—the greatest Sage of our generation?!” And they parted in Minsk. Later that evening the Hafetz Hayim gave a lecture on the Laws of Gossip. In the crowd listening was the young student. After the lecture, he went up to the saintly rabbi and begged for forgiveness, “I did not know who you really were…” The pious sage replied, “It is I who should ask you for forgiveness. You taught me a valuable lesson. Not only is one forbidden to speak disparagingly about others, one is not allowed to speak disparagingly about oneself as well!
[3] “Enactments of Rabbenu Gershom Meʾor ha-Golah,” quoted in Resp.Maharam of Rothenburg, ed. Prague, p. 160a.
[4] BT Pesaḥim 112a.
[5] The Mishnah of Sanhedrin 7:10 states that if someone wants to incriminate a person of the crime of idolatry, one may hide the witnesses and solicit the information from the culprit, who would ordinarily deny it in a court of law. According to the Minchat Hinnukh, this method may be done with any crime and evidently carried out in Jewish courts across Europe, (Rabbi Joseph Babad, Minḥat Ḥinnukh, Commandment #462). Cf. Joseph David, Resp.Bet David, I, Yoreh Deah 158.
[6] Ḥayyim Palache, Resp.Ḥikekei Lev, I, Yoreh Deah 49.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: My mother is 90 years old, in frail health but of sound mind. Last year, one of her 3 grandchildren and the youngest of my 2 sons died in an accident at age 29.
My son and my mom were close. As an adult, my son moved to another state but made a point of visiting every few years. He has remained in contact with regular phone calls and other correspondence.
My sister has demanded that my mother not be informed of my son's death. She argues that my mother will die in a few years anyway and so should be spared the sad news, and that the grieving process could hasten my mom's death. "Let mom die in peace."
I've complied with my sister's demands. Whenever my mom asks me about my son, my rehearsed response is "Your grandson loves you dearly." But as time passes without contact from my son, I'm concerned that my mom has concluded that my son has lost interest in his grandmother.
For my mom's sake, I'm uncomfortable with keeping her in the dark. But I'm also conflicted. I miss my son so very much. To include my mom in my own grieving would benefit me. After all, she is my mom.
Any ideas?
To begin with, I wish to offer you my sincerest condolences on the loss of your beloved son.
After discussing your letter with two psychologists, an ethicist, and an attorney, we arrived at the mutual opinion that you have every right to tell your mother what exactly happened. One does not live to be 90 years old without enduring some painful moments.
Mothering is a lifetime vocation, and I feel she will rise to the occasion and give you the maternal support you need. Oftentimes an older parent can display a courage and ability to rise to the occasion. She has a right to know. And you, as her daughter, have the right to tell her. Hiding the truth in this case is denying your mother’s personal autonomy.
If the situation was in reverse, and you were in your mother’s shoes, what would you want? Pose the same question to your sister (if you haven’t already), “Beloved sister, what would you do if the situation were in reverse?” It is possible she would not act any different, but that is ultimately her choice.
Naturally, it goes without saying that the manner in which you disclose this information is of the utmost importance. Be careful how you word with what you’re going to say. Given the sensitivity of the matter, you may want to have an old family friend or rabbi (if you are close with your rabbi) present with you to lend emotional support.
Incidentally, physicians are often confronted with this type of situation all the time. Physicians often have to tell an elderly or dangerously ill patient the truth about their condition and their chances for survival. Most of the literature I have studied on this subject indicates that the elderly patient has every right to know, but the matter must be tactfully approached.
Your letter did not indicate what kind of relationship you have with your sister. Nevertheless, she is entitled to her opinion, but you are not beholden to accept her opinion simply because she is your sister. As a loved one approaches death, there is considerable separation anxiety that children feel. That is normal, but your mother realizes that on some psychological and moral level, she has responsibilities to you. Allow the floodgates of motherhood to bring healing to your relationship. And for this final act of kindness and love, you will forever feel grateful that she was there with you—to the very end.
“A mother's love is patient and forgiving when all others are forsaking, it never fails or falters, even though the heart is breaking.”
I will keep you in my prayers,
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: My wife and I are thinking about how our children should dispose of our bodies once we have passed. Having no love for the traditional methods, we went in search of alternatives. We discovered a body farm. In this method the bodies are staked out (often) in the open on a protected plot of land so that they might be studied concerning natural decay, then the information gathered is used for forensic studies and training concerning murder investigations and other such things. We like the idea of this for two reasons: First, it helps to assist the living, and second, it returns the bodies to the earth in the quickest way possible. We will not go any further in this plan without guidance. Can you help?
[Administrators Note: There is a related question on the importance of burial in a Jewish cemetery in the JVO database at http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=223. The concept of a body farm was foreign to me and I had to research it. There are multiple in the US at this time. They are used for training purposes, as the question states. However, the bodies are not always placed on the ground: some are buried, partially buried, covered with materials, placed in shade or sunlight or under water, and so on. The bodies are then examined at various intervals ranging from daily to weekly to monthly, depending on what is being studied, and photographs and samples are taken. This is not, strictly speaking, a completely natural decay process, as it may include exhumation and sampling multiple times.It is certainly not a traditional burial, and the body does not remain undisturbed.]
In all honesty, forensics is not my area of expertise. However, I am familiar with some other issues pertaining to the treatment of the corpse according to the Halacha. With that thought in mind, I will try to present a well-thought-out answer to your question.
There is an important aspect about the body farm concept that you may not properly understand. You wrote, “Secondly, it returns the bodies to the earth in the quickest way possible.” Actually, that is not really the case. The body is exhumed and sampled many times over a period of weeks and months. Your body will not remain undisturbed. If that is a concern to you, then you may wish to consider other alternatives.
What does Jewish Law have to say about this process?
In Jewish law, it is traditional to compare one type of case study with possible antecedents that share similar properties. Two other areas of Halachic inquiry immediately come to mind that could shed some light on this topic: autopsies and donating one’s body for science.
Autopsies
Ordinarily autopsies are forbidden because they disfigure the body. In addition, any part of the body that is not properly buried after the organ has been removed is a violation of Jewish tradition.
However there are some important exceptions to this rule. Autopsies are not only permitted, but sometimes required—especially if it helps doctors and the police discover relevant information about the cause of death. With respect to a mysterious contagion, autopsies can help the physician determine the causes of a disease, so as to prevent the deaths of others. An autopsy is especially helpful in diagnosing a hereditary disease, which could save the lives of surviving kin as well as their children, by determining an appropriate medical intervention strategy for dealing with the disease. [1]
Are body farms in some ways analogous, in that both forensic discipline aims to ascertain certain information about the possible causes of death? On the surface, they do serve a common goal and purpose.
Body farms do not (as I understand) prevent the loss of human life. Nevertheless, they help assist in murder investigations. Forensic studies can sometimes prove the innocence of an accused murderer (much like DNA testing has proven the innocence of people accused of murder). On the basis of this comparison, the body farm is permitted—provided the body is eventually interned after the studies have been completed in a Jewish cemetery. This same principle applies no less to autopsies, which require that all the organs be properly buried with the body.
Donating One’s Body to Science
Your original question may be parsed in a different way: Is donating one’s corpse to a body farm any worse than donating a body to a medical school, for the purposes of anatomical study? This issue has also been discussed in much of the relevant Halachic literature.
Donating one’s body to science for anatomical studies is permitted according to a number of Halachic authorities. For example: The Chief Sephardic Ashkenazi Ben Tsion Uziel of Israel ruled one might make one’s body available to first-year medical students to study anatomy provided that (a) the body parts are subsequently buried according to Jewish law (b) and provided that one does not sell one’s body for money.[2] However, among contemporary Halachic authorities, R. Ovadia Yosef ruled that, “He who donates his body to science, to have his organs dissected, even though his intention is to advance scientific research, he is committing a serious offense, and might be relinquishing the chance of resurrection of his soul and body. Therefore, we must not mourn his death.” [3]
Although there is considerable debate within Jewish thought as to what exactly constitutes “resurrection,” (some Orthodox rabbis believe in a physical resurrection; others believe in a spiritual resurrection that occurs after death). Clearly R. Ovadia Yosef, like other rabbis before him, believes in physical resurrection. Of the two approaches, I personally follow the view of Rav Uziel, as well as Rabbi Yitzhak HaLevi Herzog, who permits donating one’s body for the scientific study of anatomy.
The concern for human life is the basis for many cadaver donor transplants. The prohibition from deriving benefit from the dead does not apply to donating organs that can improve the quality of human life.[4] A transplanted organ is considered to still be “alive” when it is functioning in a living person. By the same token, transplanting an organ is not considered to be a desecration of the dead. There is no greater mitzvah than bringing life to the living, whether it is the gift of an eye, skin, or other tissues that enhance the process of healing. In the final analysis, every organ—sooner or later—will be interned with the demise of the beneficiary. Consent from the living is, however, a requirement.[5]
As mentioned above, the body still needs to be properly interned after the examinations have been completed. By the same token, one is not allowed to sell one’s body to the medical college. From this perspective, the same principle ought to apply to the body-farm concept as well.
Other Alternatives
Rabbinical decisions often consider contrarian perspectives. While this may seem rather confusing to someone who is unfamiliar with this type of reasoning process, it serves to give the individual ample space to make a personal decision. As a rabbi, it is my duty to present both sides of an argument. Ultimately, each person must decide for him/herself. Bearing this thought in mind, let us examine this issue from a different point of view.
Anatomists often debate this issue among themselves. One school of thought argues that dissection is necessary to learn medical gross anatomy. The contrarian perspective argues that dissection is no longer considered necessary. Within this next decade, the development of holographic technology may make the traditional use of the cadaver a thing of the past.
Due the availability of cadavers, time limitations of the classes, and economic factors, it is important to note that not all medical schools offer courses in dissection. Computer-assisted programs such as Computer-assisted learning (CAL) packages are becoming increasingly more sophisticated, which offer an alternative to dissection.[6] With the explosion of medical technology and informational sciences that now exists, some medical schools superimpose 3D images of the human body upon the flesh of the student to demonstrate the relationship, size, and position of the various body parts. In addition, anatomy databases provide a much faster panoramic view and information about the human body than any cadaver can possibly provide. One can trace the images of a healthy person at age 20, and with the imaging software, one can literally follow the aging process from birth to death.
However, it is generally agreed that the CAL can never fully replace the intellectual, educational and emotional experience afforded to medical students by cadaver dissection provides.
In light of this, the forensic sciences also use the same kind of imaging software detailing how a body can decompose in a variety of different ways. The 3D imaging provides pictures of what a body might look like underwater, or if the body was burnt beyond recognition, diseased, and so on. Similar technological advances are also being used with animals, where vivisection is rapidly becoming passé.[7] Ergo, donating one’s body to science may not necessarily be a matter of pikuach nefesh (saving a life), as some scholars once thought–largely because of the new medical technology.
In light of the above, I would say that the CAL medical technology may already make the body farm concept unnecessary based upon the medical databases dealing with decomposition that are available on international databases. This knowledge may give you another reason to reconsider decision.
A Jewish cemetery provides an important place for your children and friends to come and visit you. The soil of the grave is considered sacred ground in nearly all civilizations around the world—and for good reason—it is a place where you can honor your loved ones; it is ultimately the place where others will someday hopefully honor and remember you. Some of the ancients believe that the greatest immortality one can receive is when others remember you for the person you were.
[3] Cited from http://www.byaaronhoward.com/index.php?action=details&record=534.
[4] Responsa of Mishpatei Uziel, Yoreh Deah, Vol 1. #28 (see his conclusion for a summary) and Responsa 29-30.
[5] See Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach Nishmat Avraham Part IV, Hoshen Mishpat 420:1; Iggrot Moshe, Yoreh Deah 1:229.
[6] Elizabeth Cottrell, The Medical Student’s Survival Guide 1: The Early Years (Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing, 2007), 58.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Is the divide between the ultra-Orthodox and other denominations (modern orthodox, conservative and reform) too great to promote a better understanding and respect between each other?
In the 19th century, when Samson Raphael Hirsch laid out his vision of Modern Orthodoxy, he believed in a philosophy based upon Rabban Gamaliel’s aphorism, “Torah is good together with a worldly occupation” (Avoth 2:2). For Hirsch, this meant that the modern Jew needed to extract the finest aspects of Western culture and still remain committed as a traditional Jew. Hirsch rejected the attitude that is so common today among the Haredim, who categorically condemn the literature of Shakespeare, or the poetry of Virgil, or the philosophical deliberations of Kant and Leibnitz as “bittul Torah,” a waste of time that ought to be reserved solely for Torah study.
Within a century and a half, it is amazing to see how Orthodoxy has changed. On the one hand, there is Yeshiva University, which was conceptually based upon the Hirschian paradigm. However, today’s Haredi and Hassidic communities reject the Hirschian model. They loathe any kind of values that are not explicitly grounded in the Torah. Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, regarded by the Lithuanians as the greatest Torah scholar of our generation, rejects the pursuit of a secular education—despite the fact that the Haredi families cannot afford to support their households. His approach to Torah is antithetical in nearly every respect to the view that Hirsch articulated in the 19th century. Rabbi Elyashiv is quoted as saying:
We must exclude all paths that lead to national service, secular studies, or the army, even if they assure a special framework for Hareidi Jews. Such a framework will subject Hareidi Jews to the control and culture of secular Jews who have thrown off the yoke of Torah. Thus they encourage all sorts of programs, academies, colleges, and the like which promise degrees, licenses, academic credentials, etc., intended to introduce goals and aspirations foreign to our way of life.“The secret and foundation to the survival of Torah and of those who fear G-d and live a life of Torah is absolute separation from the world of the secular, who have thrown off the yoke of Torah.
As such we must protest and warn against all sorts of trends from the outside that seek to harm the pure oil of the Hareidi institutions. These institutions must be under the control of the rabbis and must be guided by them, and must exclude all paths that lead to national service, secular studies, or the army, even if they assure a special framework for Hareidi Jews. Such a framework will subject Hareidi Jews to the control and culture of secular Jews who have thrown off the yoke of Torah. Thus they encourage all sorts of programs, academies, colleges, and the like which promise degrees, licenses, academic credentials, etc., intended to introduce goals and aspirations foreign to our way of life. This is in direct contradiction to the instructions of the great rabbis of previous generations, who battled against all institutions that had these purposes, and removed them from the ‘camp of Torah.’ This is especially the case now, where the institutions make clear that their purpose is to change our ways of life, and to instill foreign aspirations – nationalistic and academic – that our forefathers never accepted, bringing us to make inappropriate connections with secular people, those of the ‘culture of sinners.’”[1]
David Landau observes in his book, “Piety and Power: The World of Jewish Fundamentalism,” the current Haredi leadership is doing a grave service to its young people, condemning them and their children to generations of cyclical poverty, fostering reliance upon community assistance warned against by, among others, the great sage Maimonides.
In contrast to Haredi Judaism, Yeshiva University continues to promote Hirsch’s vision to the 21st century. One could be a pious Jew, and yet belong to the modern world. One of the most important leaders of the Modern Orthodox world in the 20th century was Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchick (1903-1993). Like Hirsch before him, Soloveitchick felt that a synthesis of Torah scholarship and modern philosophical thought offers a panoramic view of Judaism that is consistent with the models set forth in the medieval theological expositions of Saadia Gaon, Maimonides, Crescas and other Judaic thinkers. When Soloveitchick gave a class on a Talmudic passage, he often drew didactic comparisons to the thought of Kierkegaard, Hegel, Kant, and other great Western philosophers.
Today’s leading advocates of Hirschian idealism include Rabbi Norman Lamm, Irving Greenberg, David Hartman and Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, all of whom follow along the footsteps of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchick. Like Hirsch, each of these scholars stressed that Torah scholarship is capable of producing a creative synthesis with the best aspects of Western civilization. Rabbi Lamm believes that the knowledge of secular culture can only lead to a greater appreciation of Judaic values.
Torah, faith, religious learning on one side and Madda, science, worldly knowledge on the other, together offer us a more over-arching and truer vision than either one set alone. Each set gives one view of the Creator as well as of His creation, and the other a different perspective that may not agree at all with the first … Each alone is true, but only partially true; both together present the possibility of a larger truth.[2]
The Orthodox magazine, Mishpacha Magazine (Israel), has been banned by Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, who wrote in a response, “The opinion of the [upstart] weekly Mishpacha Magazine has given legitimacy to change, to going out into the workplace and earning a living for example, without embarrassment. Now, [this upstart] is challenging the holiest of the holies, [by making it seem as if] the word of the gadol is not final and unquestionable…”[3] As you can see, even Lithuanian rabbis can write with the absolute authority of a Hassidic Rebbe.
Modern Orthodoxy is feeling the assault on its worldview. Many of its rabbis are experiencing the same kind of litmus test for ideological purity that the Conservative and Reform movements have known for several decades. Converts from the Modern Orthodox world are discovering that the Haredi rabbis will not recognize their conversions, and will often nullify their conversions—especially if there is the slightest indication of a halachic—as defined by the Haredi rabbi—violation. Even within the ranks of Haredi Judaism, there has been considerable friction between the Eda Haredit, Chabad, and Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv versus Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and Chief Sephardic Rabbi Rabbi Shlomo Amar, over the issue of IDF military conversions.
The article continues, “Rabbi Seth Farber, the head of ITIM: The Jewish-Life Information Center, however, who set the military conversion dispute into motion when he filed a High Court of Justice petition against marriage registrars who do not recognize military conversions, called the understandings “a cynical use of people’s lives to make political deals, immoral and against the explicit Halacha to not deceive converts.”[4]
In another ruling, there is the story about a Ba’al Teshuvah who did not wish to eat chulent on Shabbat, nor did he shuckle (swaying) when he prayed. When this matter was brought to Rabbi Elyashiv, he rendered the following ruling: Since the Baal Teshuvah behaved properly for the past two years, there is no fear that he worships idols; therefore the wine is not considered yayin nesach. However, for the sake of stringency, he needs to undergo geiur l’humra – a conversion for the sake of stringency, just to remove doubt, based on his refusal to eat cholent and his non-swaying during prayer.[5]
Haredi sexism and gender discrimination are not coming only from the Sikrikim, as one Orthodox rabbi at this website has alluded to in one of my earlier postings; numerous harsh rulings derive from the highest echelons of Haredi power. Here are several other Haredi edicts that pose some of the greatest existential threats to the future of Israel, as a State. In the interest of time, I will cite one more example, although there are literally hundreds of other examples one could use to illustrate the insanity that has gripped the Haredi world.
Forget about blotting out the pictures of women that appear throughout the streets of Jerusalem, Bnai Brak or other cities. A question came up: What should a girl do if she wishes to dress modestly but her parents won’t let her? According to ultra-Orthodox Rabbi Yitzchok Zilberstein, a son-in-law of the 101 year old Haredi leader Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, she can injure herself in order to use it as an excuse for dressing modestly. “The blood from the self-inflicted wound will atone for the people of Israel.”[6]
Can there be reconciliation between the Ultra-Orthodox and the other branches of Judaism? If the former Chief Rabbis Abraham Isaac Kook and Ben Tsion Uziel were alive today, I would feel more optimistic about such a possibility. However, given the religious fanaticism we have witnessed from the Haredi leadership in Israel and in the United States today, I seriously doubt it.
At times it seems as though a schism is inevitable.
Will Israel, as a modern state, survive? Or will it succumb to the same type of factionalism that led to the loss of our homeland and Temple nearly 2000 years ago?
There is an old story attributed to Maimonides that I would like to mention. Maimonides had more than his fair share of critics. His fame as a physician had reached Sultan Saladin himself, and he served the Sultan throughout his life and afterward his death, Maimonides provided care to his royal family. One of the Muslim physicians wanted to demonstrate how foolish Maimonides actually was before the Sultan and the royal court. He said, “I have the question you can’t answer. In my hand, I have a bird. Tell me. Is this bird alive or dead?” Maimonides knew that any answer he would give, the physician would do the opposite of whatever he said. "If I say it’s alive, he will close his hand and smother the bird. If he says it’s dead, he will open his hand and let the bird live.” After a moment, he answered, “You hold in your hand a bird. You ask whether it is alive or dead. I can only tell you one thing. The question of life and death lies in your hands.” Once again, Maimonides demonstrated why he was the Sultan’s favorite physician.
And what was true with Maimonides, is no less true with the choices we must make in the future. Can a schism be avoided? Only if we learn to compromise and listen respectfully to one another. I pray that all sides choose wisely.
Notes:
[1] David Lev, “Rabbi Elyashiv Tells Hareidim: No to College, Army Programs” Israel National News, 12/27/2011.
[2] Norman Lamm, Torah Umadda: The Encounter of Religious Learning and Worldly Knowledge in the Jewish Tradition (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1990), 236.
[3] “Secular Media Interviews Confidant of Maran Rav Elyashiv Regarding Ban on Mishpacha Magazine in Israel” Yeshiva World, 1/12/2012.
[4] Jonah Mandel, “Eda Haredit calls off IDF conversions approval protest” Jerusalem Post, 2/21/2011.
[5] Natan Weise, “If you don’t like Chulent you may not be Jewish” Mispacha Magazine, 07/02/2007. http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2007/07/if-you-dont-like-chulent-you-may-not-be.html.
[6] Ari Galahar, “Rabbi promotes ‘modesty wounds’ Girls should hurt their legs if parents won’t let them wear long skirts, rabbi says YNET News, 07/04/2011. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4083216,00.html.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Why do we say “baruch dayan ha’emet” when someone dies?
Since the days of the Mishnah, Jewish tradition prescribes a special blessing for nearly all aspects of Jewish life. There are blessings said over new fruits; there are blessings said before the performance of a religious precept; there are blessings even for when you see the President or the Czar! Every aspect of life is bound up with the theme of blessing. In fact, the fundamental meaning of the word, “Jew” means in Hebrew, “to give thanks.”
With this thought in mind, the Sages teach there are blessings for happy occasions, and there are blessings for sad occasions. The exact nature of a sad occasion is a matter of discussion. According to the Talmud, when hearing bad news one must acknowledge God as the “Just Judge,” (Dyyan HaEmeth—literally, “the Judge of Truth”). Originally, this blessing was not limited to death per se, but applied to any kind of tragic news, e.g., the loss of one’s home due to a natural disaster or fire, the loss of the Temple, or the loss of a friend or valued family member who has died, and so on . . . [1]
The specific time to say this blessing is at the time of death itself. In practice, it is traditionally said before performing the kri’ah (the rending of the garment for an immediate family member or a spouse).[2] Note that there is no blessing ever said for tearing a garment since blessings are never said for acts of destruction. Some authorities hold that the kri’ah should be done in public—which is when the feelings of grief are strongest and most visceral.[3] The blessing should be said with God’s Name, i.e., Baruch Atah Adonai Eloheinu Melech HaOlam Dyyan HaEmet.
The Talmud teaches in the name of Rabbi Akiba, “A person should always accustom himself to saying, “Whatever the All-Merciful does, is for the ultimate good.” To illustrate the truth of this principle, the Talmud tells an anecdote about Rabbi Akiba. Once he arrived at a village and looked for a local hotel. To his dismay, there were no vacancies to be found. So, Rabbi Akiba decided to camp out in a quiet field; he brought with him a rooster, an ass, and a lamp for the evening. Suddenly, a gust of wind blew out the lamp! Then a weasel suddenly attacked and ate the rooster. A lion appeared and ate the ass! In every instance, Rabbi Akiba affirmed, “Whatever the All-Merciful does is for the good!” Later next day, Rabbi Akiba discovered that some robbers attacked and kidnapped several of the townspeople![4]
As mentioned above, in Jewish tradition, upon hearing about the death of a loved one, it is customary to say this blessing. Obviously, it is not easy to acknowledge God in a time of death; in fact, it’s probably much more natural to feel resentment toward God for taking a loved one away–especially when the person who just died happens to be a young child or adult. Nevertheless, the blessing teaches us on some psychological level to acknowledge that the binary opposites of Creation, e.g., light and darkness, good and evil, suffering and prosperity—all serve a higher purpose and contribute toward the overall welfare of the world. Were it not for death, the world could not contain or sustain all of the world’s inhabitants; there would be food shortages, war, and countless other social evils. Death is what we share with all that has ever lived.
When consoling someone, it is important to acknowledge their pain and loss. Mouthing platitudes about “God is just,” or telling someone, “I know how you feel,” are inappropriate ways to express condolence. The simple truth is, you don’t know what the mourner is experiencing. One might ask, “How appropriate is it to tell the mourner to say something he or she might not be willing to acknowledge?” Perhaps it is best to follow the sensible advice of R. Simeon b. Eleazar who says, “Do not try to comfort our fellow when the corpse of his beloved is lying before him . . .”[5] Ecclesiastes also offers some practical advice as well: “A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to be silent, and a time to speak” (Eccl. 3:7). In the beginning of the Jobian story, Job’s friends “offered sympathy and comfort” (Job 2:11). They expressed no verbal criticism of him. Sometimes we have to simply "let it be."
When we lose someone to an illness, it is worth remembering that it is better to live a good life than to live a long and meaningless life. Death is sometimes preferable to a life of pain and incessant suffering. From this perspective, death is a release. Although none of us know the amount of time we have, we must make the most of the precious gift of time that God has allotted us. The blessing teaches us to be grateful for the gift we were entrusted with, but no gift of life can last forever. Sooner or later, we will lose what we have loved until we meet again with our loved one in the world of Eternity.
Notes:
[1] See Mishnah to Berachot 9:2.
[2] Yoreh Deah 340:1 and 374:4.
[3] Yoreh Deah 340:13.
[4] BT Berachoth 60b.
[5] Mishnah Avoth 4:18.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: We are told in the Torah that certain actions will cause “karet,” i.e., that the person will be cut off from the nation. What about those Haredi fanatics who are harassing people and vandalizing property? Shouldn’t that earn them “karet” as well? Why should they continue to be part of our nation?
Question: We are told in the Torah that certain actions will cause “karet,” i.e., that the person will be cut off from the nation. What about those Haredi fanatics who are harassing people and vandalizing property? Shouldn’t that earn them “karet” as well? Why should they continue to be part of our nation?
Answer: The question is an interesting one, but before answering, I think it is important to define our terms before we venture forward. Once we define the terms, we will then examine whether or not karet is really applicable with respect to the Haredi behavior.The term karet literally means, “extirpation,” “cut off,” or “cut down,” and is related to the Assyrian word, karâtu, which conveys the same idea of “cutting.” The notion of karet implies being “cut off” from the community of Israel.
As to the nature of being “cut off,” this is a matter of discussion.
Rabbinical tradition lists 36 types of transgressions that effectively “cut off” the soul from its spiritual root—God. Some early rabbinical texts view the act of excision meant that the sinner would not live to see his 60th birthday, but others think the offender may live up to 70[1]. Should a sinner not die in the assumed time periods mentioned above, the fear of an imminent death probably exerted a frightening effect on the offender’s psyche.
The rabbinical perspective on karet resembles the type of punishments described in Greek mythology. Notions of eternal damnation as championed by Nachmanides, who believes the soul is cut off from God even in the world of Eternity, strikes a modern person as excessive. [2] Maimonides believes that God denies the wicked sinner’s soul in the hereafter. [3] However, the Talmud does say the power of repentance and the Day of Atonement can suspend the heavenly punishment, and erase all vestige of sin. [4] Support for this perspective may be found in the Tanakh itself, “Cast away from you all the crimes you have committed, and make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. Why should you die, O house of Israel?For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies, says the Lord GOD. Return and live!” (Eze.18:31-32).
There is another way of viewing karet that the Talmud and the medievalists did not consider. Karet has nothing to do with being “cut off” in the eternal sense from God. Rather, it is a form of ostracizing. In a culture where individual identity was defined in terms primarily of the household group to which the individual be longed, karet may have originally meant social ostracizing from all aspects of community life. In pre-modern societies, being a member of the community strengthened both the individual and society as a whole.
Ostracizing meant the offender would have no social relations with his family, friends, business relations, and social network. Such a penalty must have seemed like death itself. Apart from the community meant being cut off from the deeper reality of life that connects the soul to God. Being cut off had practical consequences, e.g., the loss of status and social privileges. The Christian and Jewish practice of excommunication may well have been inspired by the karet concept. The underlying theme in karet seems to focus on the maintenance of certain religious boundaries that have an important impact on the corporate character of the nation. The social implications of someone who did not practice ritual circumcision meant the family would not have anything to do with the son who separated himself from the religious and spiritual traditions of his family. It is no accident that karet is sometimes used as a metaphor for divorce (See Deut. 24:3).
With these thoughts in mind, let us return to the your original question regarding the Haredi community. Notions of karet as defined by the early rabbinic standards do not apply to the Haredim. Today’s Haredi separatism derives from personal choice; they do not wish to have any contact with the non-Haredi Jewish community. They alone have cut the ties that bind them to the Jewish people.
This attitude can be seen in many ways, for example: Their leaders encourage them to destroy all their home-computers, as well as all phones that have wireless connections to the Internet. Others believe that the pursuit of a secular education is sinful, since it comes at the expense of giving up Torah study. They also believe that the Rebbe or Rav’s authority is infallible.
Although Haredim receive billions of dollars for their institutions, their separatist theology keeps their followers impoverished. On the one hand, they hate the State of Israel, but on the other hand they demand that the State continue supporting their lifestyle! To use another analogy, Haredim often behave like a spoiled adolescent girl who says, “I hate you Mom! Now, will you please drive me to the Mall?” The Israeli government needs to practice some "tough love" with the Haredim. The American Jewish community must make its financial support for Israel contingent upon Israel protecting the rights of all of its citizens.
Haredi leaders have not come to terms with the fact we are living in the 21st century. Many of them are uncomfortable by the religious and spiritual challenges of living in a contemporary world. Too many of them wish they could turn the clock back to a simpler time when the modern world did not matter. Cutting them off from the Jewish people is not a solution. Rather, the State needs to diminish its financial support of their institutions, and impose taxation upon them like everyone else, and insist that its young people join the army.
[2] See Ramban’s Commentary to Lev. 18:29 and in Sha’ar ha-Gemul.
[3] Maimonides writes, “The punishment of the wicked is that they do not merit eternal life, but they suffer karet and die” ( MT Teshuvah 8:1).
[4] “For what transgression does penitence procure atonement? For that of a positive commandment. And in what case does repentance suspend punishment and the Day of Atonement procure atonement? In such as involve extirpation, death-penalty through the Beth din and in actual negative commandments” (BT Yoma 86a).
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: How can we try to be respectful and understanding of the ultra-Orthodox when they are at the forefront of hostile activities like rioting at places which are open on Shabbat and fairly recently, vandalizing a girls’ school in Bet Shemesh because it bordered their neighborhood?
In our previous posting, somebody asked the question: How is it possible to respect the Ultra-Orthodox in Israel, when many of them behave so violently toward the non-Haredi community?
A different reframing of the question might read: Must respect be earned, or is respect given carte blanche? Moreover, what does Jewish tradition say about these important questions?
According to Hillel’s famous advice, “What is hateful unto you, do not do to your fellow man,” Hillel demands that we treat each person with respect. Authentic religion begins with the cultivation of respect toward others. Whenever religious teachers fail to instill within their followers a reverence for life, religion becomes a sham.
Two Jewish ethical philosophers, Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas, develop Hillel’s message howbeit through different paths. Buber maintains that God is the third partner in every human relationship. The way we treat our fellow human beings says much about the way we feel about God. Anyone who mistreats his neighbor paradoxically behaves like an atheist.
Levinas adds that the human face reflects the Divine face, and each person must act ethically toward the Other—even if he is not necessarily deserving of respect. Levinas argues if somebody mistreats you, you have no ethical right to mistreat another human being. Two wrongs do not make a right.
In practical terms, Levinas makes a good point. If your employer acts like a jerk, that does not entitle you to act like one also. Standing up to abuse is one thing; you have every right to question his judgement–however, you need not act like a jerk in the process!
The question gets more complicated when you have an entire ethnic group misbehaving, rioting, and threatening the lives of innocent bystanders because of religious reasons.
In this instance, Levinas’s ethical approach breaks down and loses some (but certainly not all) of its validity. Buber’s criticism of Levinas is well known, for Buber claims morality is a two-way street. If somebody mistreats you, there is no a priori responsibility to play the role of a passive victim. You have no obligation to show that person respect. Morality does operate on a symmetrical principle–contra Levinas!
Let us return to our original question: Must respect be earned before it is given?
Not necessarily.
As mentioned above, respect is something we must show to all people; however, if the Other acts in an anti-social manner, society has the duty to incarcerate its offenders, criminals, and deviants. The victimizer is unworthy of respect. It is very difficult to truly respect somebody who has not even a scintilla of healthy self-respect.
This is exactly the problem we now have with the Haredim rioting in Israel.
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.]
Today, the problem of the agunah (the “chained woman”) who cannot remarry is a problem largely due to rabbinical leadership and misinterpretation of traditional texts.
Perhaps one of the best biblical personalities describing the plight of the agunah is Jephtah’s daughter (cf. Judges 11-12). In the tragic biblical story, the community leaders ask Jepthah to lead their community in battle against the mighty Ammonites. Before undertaking the mission, Jepthah makes a vow and offers God the first thing that comes out of his house as a burnt sacrifice. But to his surprise, his daughter comes out to greet him! The fate of his Jepthah’s daughter remains somewhat of a mystery. Commentators—ancient and modern alike—wonder what became of this nameless young woman, who never lived to realize her life’s potential. Rabbinical tradition offers an intriguing deconstruction of the story.
Rabbinic tradition makes an important observation about Jephtah’s character: Although Jepthah acts like a pious man, he is really foolish and quite ignorant. Jepthah’s vow could have been annulled had he visited Phineas (Pinchas), who acted as the High Priest in his community.
Phineas or Jephtah refused to solve the dilemma; each one demanded the other person come to him first. Pinchas said, “Shall I, high priest son of a high priest, demean myself by calling on an ignoramus?” Jepthah’s reaction was just as stubborn. Jephthah said, “Shall I, chief of the tribes of Israel, foremost of its leaders, demean myself by calling on a commoner?” As a result of their disagreement, the hapless maiden perished from the world, and both men were held liable for her blood. Interestingly, both Phineas and Jepthah meet a terrible fate. Phineas loses his ability to discern God’s will, while Jepthah meets a violent death; his body is cut to pieces by his foes.[1]
The above Midrashic text captures the dilemma existing today with the agunah, as well. Despite the numerous solutions that exist, the stodginess and reluctance of today’s Halachic authorities make this an insolvable problem. Given the magnitude of the problem we see today, responsible rabbinical leaders must act in the name of fairness and moral decency. Failure to end the deadlock scandalizes the religious community, which is perceived as enabling criminal and heinous behavior. At worse, some of the rabbinical leaders in Israel have been known to have received bribes from an estranged husband. Rabbis must choose to either solve the problem, or compound it. This is an ethical decision that must be made.
Historically, the rabbis did everything in their power to make it easier to terminate the agunah’s status as a married woman. If she claimed that her husband had disappeared and died—even on the basis of her own testimony, she does not require any other witnesses to substantiate her claim. This, of course, assumes each party had an amicable relationship.[2]
The history of annulment goes back to the early rabbinic period. The rabbis plainly state, anyone who marries a woman, must do so in accordance with the rules defined by the Sages, “a man takes a woman under the conditions laid down by the rabbis… and the rabbis may annul his marriage” (BT Gittin 33a), has rarely been employed since the 14th century. The fact the rabbis felt empowered to utilize annulment (hafka’at kiddushin) is sufficient reason to use it especially when husbands resort to blackmail and extortion. According to the Talmud, if a man forces a woman to marry him—even if she should later acquiesce to marrying the man, Jewish law rules that the marriage is nevertheless void. [3]
One of the methods to annul a marriage is an idea that was once proposed by R. Yerucham (14th century France), who argued: Any marriage that takes place with fewer than ten people may be considered invalid. More importantly, every community has the right to determine conditions for invalidating a marriage if individuals go against the standards that are defined by a given community.[4]
Some solutions stipulate at the time of marriage, certain conditions be made, which could retroactively annul a marriage, such as in the case of abandonment. Conditions may also be made at the time of marriage, to bypass the requirement to enact a levirate marriage in the event her husband dies childless.[5]
Annulment is by far the most straight-forward way of cutting the halachic Gordian knot. One of our past generation’s greatest Halachic minds, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, often annulled marriages in cases involving fraud. According to him, a woman would never have knowingly entered into a marriage had she been informed about certain facts, e.g., male impotence, spousal abuse, mental illness, and so on. The fact the husband refused to disclose this history prior to their marriage constitutes serious grounds for annulment. Rabbi Feinstein referred to these marriages as kiddushe ta’ut — marriages that were due to mistaken circumstances.[6]
In 1997, the State of New York State ruled that no court can enter a judgment of annulment or divorce unless any barriers to religious remarriage by a spouse, the removal of which are within the control of the other spouse, have been removed.[7]
In the Conservative Movement, in 1968, the Rabbinical Assembly Law Committee unanimously empowered the Joint Bet Din of the Conservative Movement to annul marriages, as a matter of last resort.[8]
Among the Orthodox, a number of rabbis are now using prenuptial agreements, not incorporated into the ketubah. Some mention words to these effect by the groom during the ceremony, through which the husband and wife agree to abide by orders of a designated Beth Din, regarding the potential possibility of giving, or accepting a get. Some scholars report that Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, looked upon this idea with favor.[9]
The late Rabbi Emanual Rackman, chancellor of the celebrated Bar-Ilan University in Israel, convened his own rabbinical court and implemented hafka’at kiddushin today. Rabbi Rackman notes that “There are three factors that play a part in all legal development: One is a sense of logic, the second is the sense of justice, and the third concerns the needs of society. All three elements play a part in Jewish law that there’s no escaping. This is true of all legal systems and of the halacha as well.”[10] In this seminal article, Rabbi Rackman calls for a demythologization (i.e., removing the incorrect misconceptions people have regarding the nature of Halacha) “By demythologizing, what do we mean? Some Orthodox rabbis say that Jewish law never changes; that it is fixed, immutable. They know this isn’t true, but perhaps they say it because they feel that this in itself creates a value that people should not get used to the idea that Jewish law can be changed. Changes are often requested by people whose motivation is simply selfish. They want to justify what they want to do . . .” [11]
Rabbi Rackman was not only a brilliant scholar, he also possessed an honesty rarely seen among religious scholars today. There is no reason why we cannot solve the agunah issue in our time. The destruction of human happiness thousands of woman are experiencing and the fear of stigmatization must take greater consideration than some mistaken notion that Jewish law is monolithic and unchanging.
Where there is a Halachic will, there will always be a Halachic way . . .
Notes:
[1] Midrash Tanhuma, Be-hukkotai, 5.
[2] JT Yevamot 15:1, 77a (15:1, 14d
[3] BT Bava Bathra 48b.
[4] Responsa, Toledot Adam ve-Ḥavvah, Sec. Ḥavvah, xxii, 4.
[5] Responsa, Ḥatam Sofer, EH 1:111.
[6] Cf. Iggeret Moshe, Even HaEzer Vol I Responsa #79, 80.
[7] NY State Section 253 of the Domestic Relations Law.
[8] Irwin H. Haut, Divorce in Jewish Law and Life, (New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1983), 99.
[9] Meyer E. Rabinowitz (Chairman, Joint Bet Din of the Conservative Movement), Agunot (Abandoned Wives), 1998, adapted from his comments at the 1998 Agunot Conference, in Jerusalem.
[10] Rabbi Levi Meir ed.. Jewish Values in Bioethics, (NY: Human Sciences Press, 1986), 150-159.
[11] Ibid., 152.
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?
When the ancient psalmists gazed into the heavens, they did not behold an endless abyss of cosmic nothingness; rather, they beheld a God with whom they could audaciously and personally address as “You.” All these sundry personal pronouns and anthropomorphic metaphors serve to convey something profound about the mystery of God’s Presence and closeness to the world, without which God could not be known. Martin Buber notes that in addition, anthropomorphic language reflects.
Certain psalms give expression to our deepest yearnings that God is attentive to our prayers. Jewish mystics seem to believe that the psalms act as spiritual conduits, providing the worshiper with a language of prayer since not everyone is articulate!
· Our need to preserve the concrete quality is evidenced in the encounter. . . .It is in the encounter itself that we are confronted with something compellingly anthropomorphic, something demanding reciprocity, a primary You. This is true of those moments of our daily life in which we become aware of the reality that is absolutely independent of us, whether it be as power or as glory, no less than of the hours of great revelation of which only a halting record has been handed down to us. [1]
When viewed from this perspective, the God we encounter in the Psalms is not the God of the philosophers who often conceived God as the Creator of the Cosmos. In the Psalms, God is also a Redeemer Who takes cognizance of human prayer and the heart that suffers. In the final analysis, to the Psalmists of old, God is a relational Being Who seeks to heal the shattered human heart (Psalm 147:2). The psalmists believe in a concept that is sometimes better described as “cosmic personalism.”
Psalm 8:5-10 really captures the beauty of this theological and spiritual concept in a way that captures the fragility and potential greatness of the human condition.
· What are humans that you are mindful of them,
mere mortals that you care for them?
Yet you have made them little less than a god,
crowned them with glory and honor.
You have given them rule over the works of your hands,
put all things at their feet:
All sheep and oxen, even the beasts of the field,
The birds of the air, the fish of the sea,
and whatever swims the paths of the seas.
O LORD, our Lord,
How awesome is your name through all the earth!
Not all Psalms are the same; the Psalter (i.e., the composer) expresses feelings of doom and gloom, sickness, homelessness, birth and rebirth, death, joy, reflections, gratitude—a cacophony of emotions that even the most common worshiper in a synagogue or church can readily identify and understand.
Jewish tradition has long encouraged Jews of all generations to see their personal narrative as something that is embedded in the words of the Psalms. The Psalmist in essence created a liturgical template for all Jews to use regardless of their spiritual circumstances.
Psalms of healing vary from community to community; Chabad is fond of saying Pss. 20, 6, 9, 13, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 41, 49, 55, 56, 69, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 102, 103, 104, 107, 116, 118, 142, 143, and 148—a total number of 36, which equals 2 x 18 (chai, “life”). Bratzlav Hassidim are fond of saying Psalms 16, 32, 41, 42, 59, 77, 90, 105, 137, 150 during their midnight prayers that mourn for the loss of the Temple.
Sephardic and many Kabbalistic Jews are accustomed to recite Psalm 119, which is an acrostic psalm that contains all the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. It is apropos to say out loud the verses letters of the verses corresponding to each of the sick person’s—or deceased person’s Hebrew name (i.e., the latter would apply on a Yahrzeit).
Lastly, you may want to read the Psalms just to familiarize yourself with these ancient prayers and personally choose the Psalms that speak directly to you and your situation.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Is it okay for an unmarried 22 year old couple to sleep together in the same bed, in the same room as the woman's 11 year old brother?
In the interest of brevity, I must say that the Halacha frowns upon young people sleeping together before they get married. That being said, historically, young people will always act like young people regardless of what the codes of Jewish Law or books of Etiquette have to say.
Still, young people tend to forget how easily it is to get pregnant. That’s one of life’s simple complications and that is why marriage is such a great institution for young people who love one another to seriously consider. Mind you, I am not condoning the behavior; I am merely speaking about its reality in our times.
However, when you add an eleven year old brother to the mix, I think you are modeling some very poor behavior. Parents must have privacy; in fact, everyone ought to have privacy. Granted, that is not always possible. Here is my recommendation: (1) Have your eleven year-old brother sleep in the living room. (2) Do not engage in any intimacy while he is in the house. (3) Better still, have the boy stay with his parents—where he belongs.
As I was going through the classical Jewish legal texts dealing with Jewish etiquette, I came across several interesting historical facts that most rabbis and lay people are probably unaware of. In the impoverished communities of Europe, Jewish and non-Jewish families did not always have the luxury of having separate bedrooms like we now have today.
It was not uncommon for entire families share one bed [1]—provided of course, people were modestly attired. Given the lack of heat, the circumstances were decidedly different because a sick child might not survive without the body heat of the other family members. Such a practice was very common throughout the medieval period as well.[2] By the 18th century, the custom of family beds became widely unusual throughout most of Europe. In the United States, the practice continued well into the early 20th century. Even Abe Lincoln, while traveling, would share a bed with a friend.[3]
My, the world has changed . . .
Given the problems we know recognize about pedophilia, we can now say in retrospect the medieval practice of families sharing a bed or a bedroom ought to be strongly discouraged.
Notes:
[1] Even HaEzer 21:7.
[2] Jeffrey L. Singman, "Daily Life in Medieval Europe" (Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing, 1999), 46.
[3] Stephen Mennell, “The American Civilizing Process”(Oxford: Polity Press, 2007), 64-65.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: I am taking a college course on Politics and Religion. Why don't Jews, like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and other faiths go out and spread the word?
If you look at Judaic history, you will find that Judaism actually tried to make Judaism more spiritually appealing to the non-Jewish world. One of the first attempts at making Judaism more universal occurred when the Jews of Alexandria first translated the Bible into Greek. The end-product of this venture was a literary masterpiece known as the “Septuagint,” deriving from the Greek word “seventy,” named after the seventy elders who helped articulate Moses’ message to the people after the revelation at Mt. Sinai.
From the view of its original team of translators, these Alexandrian Jewish scholars believed that the translation of the Bible would serve to not only make the Bible more understandable to predominantly Greek speaking Jewish audience, it would also serve to make Judaism more intelligible and respectable to the gentile community.
But there may have been a more subtle goal. More than anything else the Alexandrian Jewish leaders wanted to promote an image of Judaism that did not suffer from parochialism. These men possessed a global-minded vision of Judaism as an international faith that could attract the best minds of the Hellenistic and pagan worlds. They believed that as a universal faith, Judaism could unite all the families of humankind. In fact, many Greeks came to embrace Judaism as their new faith. If you examine many of the rabbinic names in the first century C.E., there are quite a number of Greek sounding names, e.g., Antigonous, Alexander, Dosa, and Onkelos–attesting to the fact that Judaism expanded its population growth in the days of Late Antiquity by welcoming proselytes.
Philo of Alexandria, Judaism’s greatest Jewish philosopher of the first century (an older contemporary of Jesus), used the Septuagint to expound the message of ethical monotheism that is the foundation of Jewish ethics and theology.
Just imagine what a curious non-Jew must have thought when he heard Philo expound these famous words in his short but poignant work, “Nobility.” In this pericope, Philo stresses the importance of equal treatment of the outsider who comes to embrace the Judaic faith; the mark of the pious man is not “good birth,” but rather the individual’s virtue. Anyone familiar with the biblical narratives knows that even some of the greatest men of antiquity often sired sons like Cain, Ham, Esau, and others. In short, if Abraham could become a convert to the monotheistic belief in an ethical God, then surely other people could also make that same decision. In his closing paragraph, Philo adds:
We should, therefore, blame those who spuriously appropriate as their own merit what they derive from others, good birth; and they should justly be regarded as enemies not only of the Jewish race, but of all mankind; of the Jewish race, because they engender indifference in their brethren, so that they despise the righteous life in their reliance upon their ancestors’ virtue; and of the Gentiles, because they would not allow them their need of reward even though they attain to the highest excellence of conduct, simply because they have not commendable ancestors. I know not if there could be a more pernicious doctrine than this: that there is no punishment for the wicked offspring of good parents, and no reward for the good offspring of evil parents. The law judges each man upon his own merit, and does not assign praise or blame according to the virtues of the forefathers.[1]
There can be no doubt that Philo envisioned a day when Judaism would win the hearts of humankind, and would eventually prove to truly become a light unto the nations of the world, as Isaiah foretold (Isaiah 49:6).
The NT bears witness to the phenomena of Jewish proselytizing and one can easily see how early Christianity incorporated much of first century’s Jewish activity, making it a part of their own modus operandi. The Gospels attest that the Pharisees “compass sea and land to make one proselyte” (Matt. 23:15). Most Christian scholars see this passage as a rhetorical exaggeration,[2] but one must seriously wonder whether this observation is indeed correct. Josephus himself observes that Judaism in his day appealed to Greek and barbarian cities alike.
Historians observe the even in the centuries that followed the great destruction of the Temple, 10% of the Roman population was Jewish—an astounding statistic! Based on the number of Jewish catacombs found in Rome, there were about 100,000 Jews who had either settled or converted to Judaism in the early centuries both before and after the Common Era. [3]
Judging from the literature of that era, one may surmise that the Roman population probably found the Jews to be an intriguing ethnic group in their encounters. The Romans, much like Americans today, probably found the Shabbat discussions on the Torah to be interesting and provocative. The Jewish community proved to be cordial and hospitable with their Latin and Greek speaking guests. The intellectual ambiance evidently attracted many new converts to the faith. The early Christian church once had some real competition from the Jewish community—of all people!
Roman philosophers, writers, and politicians often complained about how the conquered people of Judea behaved more like the conquerors! According to the Roman historian Tacitus, he was very disturbed at the proselytizing efforts made by Jews which he regarded as a threat to the Empire. One Roman Empress, Poppaea Augusta Sabina (the second wife of Emperor Nero) was a close friend of Josephus and she is credited with building a synagogue; in addition, contrary to Roman custom, she was buried instead of cremated—more in line with Jewish tradition.[4]
The Roman satirist Juvenal (60-130 C.E.), likewise expresses outrage at the spread of Jewish families among the aristocracy of Rome. He regarded Judaism as a mystery religion, and believed the Jews worshiped the clouds on the Sabbath. The Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca and adviser to Emperor Nero was hardly any better and noted, “ The customs of this accursed race have gained such influence that they are now received throughout the world. The vanquished have given laws to their victors.”[5] Some Roman thinkers considered Judaism on par with atheism since the God of Judaism is not visible.
As mentioned before in the “Groucho Marx Syndrome” posting, the time has come for modern rabbis to let go of the traumatized memories of Late Antiquity. In an open society, Judaism can greatly benefit from the energy, passion, and love of Judaism that so many of today’s Jews by Choice possess. In my Shul, over 40% are dedicated Jews by Choice. Anyone interested in learning about Judaism, feel free to contact me by sending me an email at this website.
For every Jew-by-Choice I welcome, I feel as a rabbi I am recovering lost souls taken away from us by Hitler and his eternal legion of Hitler-wannabees.
======
Notes:
[1] Philo, “On Nobility,” Virtues 206-222.
[2] S. McKnight, “A Light among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period” (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991).
[3] Letizia Pitigliani, “A Rare Look at the Jewish Catacombs of Rome” Biblical Archaeology Review (May/June 1980), 43. Among the sarcophagi, she describes some of the ornate artwork that impressed her, “The most well-preserved fresco depicted a crudely painted Torah shrine (the Ark of the Law), its sacred scrolls flanked by the etrog, or citron; the shofar, or ram’s hoary; the lulav, a cluster of palm, myrtle, and willow branches; and a long-necked oil jar, a beaker and basin . . .”
[4] Menachem Sten, “Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Vol. 2″ (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press, 1980), 5.
[5] Cited from Louis H. Feldman, “Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World” (Princeton: Princeton, 1993), 491, n. 40.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: My mother and I are presently having an issue about tznius. I wear long skirts and when skirts are just past the knee or a little longer, I wear pants underneath. I also prefer to wear long sleeves rather than 3/4 sleeves, and I generally do not wear red. My mother thinks that all this is unnecessary, and won't let me out of the house in more than two layers during the summer, although I never get overheated. If I feel that dressing this way is essential to my Judiasm, do I have to listen to my mother?
Assuming that you are new to the Orthodox life, I think your mother is correct; honoring her wishes is certainly one of the most important precepts—especially since she does not mind you dressing like a Modern Orthodox young woman. Your mother has every right to make this demand since you are already acting in accordance with Jewish tradition and law.
Modesty is really more about a state of mind than it is anything else. Being “modest,” is an important value in our tradition. Perhaps the most famous passage regarding modesty comes from the prophet Micah 6:8, which reads:
You have been told, O man, what is good,
and what the LORD requires of you:
Only to do right and to love goodness,
and to walk modestly with your God.
The traditions of tsiniut (modesty) really vary from community to community. What one community considers “modest,” is considered “immodest” by another. For example, a couple of years ago in Israel, there were some Haredi rabbis who complained about a dress shop’s display of naked mannequins! I can assure you there are no laws of tsniut governing mannequins!
I would be willing to bet you a cappuccino at Starbucks that you probably would not mind seeing your picture in a high school yearbook or in the local newspaper in honor of your accomplishments or charitable work with the indigent of your community, right? However, if you are a woman living in Jerusalem, the pious rabbis would consider your picture as a breach of tsniut! Even Secretary Hillary Clinton has recently blasted Israel for allowing the Haredi rabbis to discriminate against women in their country.
Here are some other examples to consider:
· In Sephardic countries, even young girls used to cover their hair because it was (and still is in many parts of the Muslim world), for young girls to appear “immodestly dressed.” Some ladies in Jerusalem have upset even the most pious of rabbis by wearing a burka, only exposing their eyes. However, as the great Sephardic scholar Ben Ish Chai explains, the custom of head coverings was rejected by the women of Europe.[1]
· Some Halachic scholars argue that a little bit of exposed hair presents no Halachic problem.[2] Many Modern Orthodox women will not cover their hair once they are married; those who do cover their hair, don’t mind letting large portions of their hair show underneath a hat. Now in other communities like in Me’ah Sha’arim in Jerusalem, that would be the height of immodesty.
· Another perennial question regarding tsniut is the matter whether or not women may sing in a public event; once again, there are ample precedents that permit women to sing—but others would regard this position as “immodest.”
· Women are routinely assaulted by the Haredim in Israel for not sitting at the “back of the bus,” and that their failure to do so is because of an alleged lack of tsniut.
The message becomes even more painfully clear to Jewish women all over the world. The Ultra-Orthodox do not want women to be seen or heard. Some communities insist that women walk on opposite sides of the street, or that they not attend a store whenever there are men inside shopping. As you can see, tsniut has become almost a national obsession for the Haredi, Hassidic, and Right-Wing Zionists.
As you can see, there is no limit how modest one wishes to be. Unfortunately, the issue today regarding tsniut has become more of a political issue than a halachic issue--and this self-righteous attitude is threatening to unravel Israeli society in a way that Israel's enemies could never hope to accomplish on their own.
The bottom line, look inwardly into your soul, and you will realize what true modesty really is. Modesty is never pretentious; a modest person is not interested in merely “looking” modest, but is truly modest—she’s the real deal and not an imitation. [3]
One last note, I have noticed that some young women do wear dresses over pants; I am told by some of the young teenage girls in my Shul, that this is considered fashionable.
[1] He writes further, “Look at the women of Europe, whose custom is not to hide themselves from strangers. Nonetheless, their clothes are orderly; they do not reveal their bodies except only their faces, necks, hands, and heads. It is true that their hair is uncovered and this custom of theirs is not possible according to our laws. But, they have one justification They say, “Yet still, this custom (of having their hair uncovered) was accepted by all their women – both Jewish and Gentile – to walk about with their hair uncovered is no different than revealing of their faces. It does not cause sexual thoughts in men when they see it with their eyes.” These are their words which they answer for this custom and we do not have an answer to reject this answer of theirs”( Ben Ish Chai, Rav Pealim helek 4 Kuntras Sod Yesharim #5).
[3] There is a fascinating psychological concept in Halacha known as îçæé ëéåäøà (mechzei k'yuhara), i.e., public religious actions that give an appearance of excessive piety). For example, the Mishnah Berurah mentions the practice of one individual who used to publicly put on Rabbanu Tam’s Tefillon as a show of his excessive piety. Such behavior is considered ostentatious and inappropriate (O.H. 34 MB 16, cf. O.H. 652:6).
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: If a child (teenager or older) chooses to observe mitzvot differently than their parents, does a parent have a right to try to persuade them otherwise? Where is the line? What if the child wants to observe tzniut (modesty) or a level of kashrut (dietary laws) with more stringency?
Adolescent rebellion is a normal part of growing up. All of us as adults can remember fond—and perhaps not so fond—memories of issues that we have experienced in our early youth. That being said, whatever response a parent crafts must be expressed in a loving and positive manner. Authoritarian power will more likely create greater resentment and only serve to create more family disharmony and dysfunction. Adolescence is the time when our children attempt to define their identity. The words of Kahil Gibran are especially appropriate:
·Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you. And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you. You may give them your love but not your thoughts. For they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodiesbut not their souls . . .
When a young person looks at the parent, s/he may ask themselves, “Am I my own person? Or am I just a mini-Me of my parent?” If the adolescent is to develop his or her own identity, it behooves parents to allow their children (to some degree) to have some space to make that discovery. If anything, verbally acknowledging your child’s uniqueness can take the sting out of Oedipal or Electra Complexes from developing.
The last thing any parent wants is for the child to consciously overthrow the parent’s authority —which will psychologically happen if the parent chooses to rule the home like a dictator rather than as a wise counselor. Wise parenting demands that parents be attuned to the child’s unspoken desire to be accepted and respected by one’s peers and family.
On a practical note, I would suggest that if it is a matter of adhering to a higher degree of kashrut, then parents need to ask: Is my daughter’s request for glatt kosher meat affordable? Or, would it make the observance of kashrut more of a financial hardship? In these tough times, the daughter needs to be sensitive to the fact that stricter observances of kashrut often comes with a heftier price tag. If the adolescent wishes to contribute a little bit toward purchasing a higher grade of kosher meat, the young adolescent might rethink her position. It’s always easier to be super strict if someone else is footing the bill.
If my adolescent son/daughter wanted to keep a stricter standard of kashrut, I would definitely wamt to know why my child is feeling this way? Are the teachers at the Day School or Yeshiva speaking critically about those kosher-observing families observing what they consider to be an “inferior standard, or not?” If someone from the yeshiva is attempting to persuade my child to keep a higher degree of kashrut or modesty, I would be upset at the yeshiva for attempting to seize parental authority away from the parents!
As a parent, if your family is invited to a friend or family’s home where their kashrut observance is less than your present family is, then I suggest that your daughter observe the level of kashrut of the host, so as to not embarrass or humiliate the host family. Shaming someone is a much more serious sin because failing to observe kashrut is considered to be only a sin affecting one’s relationship with God alone. Shaming anyone is a sin that weakens our relationship with God and people alike. If your daughter wishes to be extra religious, it is imperative that her interpersonal behavior be as exemplary, otherwise she is not being religiously consistent.
With respect to the tzniut issue, I think it’s important to dialogue with your daughter about the importance of being modest. Obviously, some women wear stylish pants, others insist on wearing as much clothing as possible. Some women in Jerusalem, known as the “Jewish Taliban,” look indistinguishable from the Taliban women in Afghanistan. The local Haredi rabbis have taken the position that this degree of modesty is excessive even for them!
Parents should engage the adolescent and ask her, “What do you think is the real meaning of tsniut? Obviously modesty is more of an interior attitude; it should not be about showing the world how pious one is.[1]
Lastly, with adults, the problems become more nuanced. If the parents are not observant at all, it is important for the parents to try to accommodate the child and be support the child’s desire by maintaining separate dishes, foods, and so on. Actually, my parents did that for me when I was becoming observant in my early teens. If the child is an adult, it is important for the child to act respectfully—and give simple instructions how to cook kosher for whenever s/he visits. There is always one principle that remains unchanging: one’s ways should always be conducted in the manner of “Her ways are pleasant ways, and all her paths are peace” (Prov 3:17).
In summary:
·Recognize the virtues of wise parenting vis-à-vis authoritarian styles of parenting
·Encourage the adolescent to explore her own freedom within the confines of Jewish tradition.
·Examine the practical and economic changes a family would have to undergo and ask yourselves, “Is it still worth it?”
·Try to understand the person(s) or institution that is pushing her in this austere Halachic direction.
·Never embarrass anyone for keeping a “lower standard” of kashrut.
·With respect to modesty; focus on the question: “What does it really mean to be ‘modest?”
·Adults ought to show respect and kindness before asking a non-observant parent to undertake any religious behavior upon his/her behalf.
Best of luck,
Rabbi Dr. Michael Leo Samuel
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: God warns us explicitly not to follow in the ways of the other nations. How does this apply to our custom to give gifts on Chanukah, which seems to have been taken from the very not Jewish tradition of giving gifts on Christmas?
The verse, “Do not conform, therefore, to the customs of the nations whom I am driving out of your way, because all these things that they have done have filled me with disgust for them” (Lev 20:23) specifically pertains to not emulating pagan religious traditions. Most Halachic authorities do not consider Christianity as a “pagan religion.” At worst, Christianity is an amalgamation of Judaic and pagan elements; Jews should not regard Christianity as “idolatry.”
Still and all, the original question is valid for other reasons: Is it appropriate for Judaism to integrate practices that derive from non-Judaic sources? Historians believe the custom of gift-giving in early Christianity originated with the Roman celebration of Saturnalia, which also occurs late December.
Many traditional rabbis would certainly concur with the view that sees gift-giving on Hanukkah as a concession to popular Christian culture—plain and simple. To some degree, these rabbis make a valid point. In Southern California, there was a well-known rabbi of a prominent Reform synagogue who used dress up as “HanuClaus” every year in a blue and white outfit, while wearing a prosthetic white beard. This type of religious capitulation to Christmas is painfully obvious—Oy, oy, oy! This is obviously the wrong message we wish to instill this time of the year about Hanukkah.
From a historical perspective, the question becomes a bit more nuanced and complex. Prof. Eliezer Segal thinks Hanukkah Gelt began at a time when Jewish teachers were an impoverished class. Hanukkah was the time when parents would give their children monies to give to their teachers. It was only natural for the children to receive a little financial incentive for carrying out the good deed. This practice eventually led to other older children asking that their parents give some money to them too.
This writer believes Segal’s explanation falls just a little bit short of the mark.
Life for the Jew in medieval and modern times was often filled with despair and uncertainty. As a persecuted minority, something had to be done to buoy the spirits of children, who frankly, felt jealous of the local Christian children celebrating Christmas with the usual pomp and festivities. This is the principle reason (in my opinion) why the giving of Hanukkah Gelt began, which later morphed into gift-giving.
While it is true, one could say this custom mimics Christian tradition, there is another way of looking at this relatively new Jewish custom. For one thing, no religion lives in a hermetically sealed environment. Where different religions peacefully co-exist, a cultural commingling of values is inevitable.[1]
The commingling of Jewish and Christian values is not without complete precedent. One interesting example comes to mind: the 16th century Halachic scholar, R. Yoel Sirkes (better known as the “Bach”) had no problem using Christian melodies in the synagogue provided these melodies had widespread and universal appeal.[2] There is also the ritual of “Schlogging Kaparet,” waving a live chicken over one’s head on the Eve of Yom Kippur. Despite its antiquity, R. Yosef Caro, author of the Shulchan Aruch condemned this practice because of its similarity to Amorite paganism.[3]
In all candor Judaism has since rabbinic times borrowed numerous religious beliefs and practices from its Semitic neighbors, e.g., the belief in demonology (e.g., Lilith) is clearly Babylonian in nature. Many superstitions we have regarding the Evil Eye also derive from pagan sources.[4] In addition, many of the rabbis participated in what we would now identify as occult practices.[5]
Oftentimes we reason backwards in our attempt to find an explanation for a contemporary practice. It’s a little bit like trying to hit a bull’s eye by first painting the target around the arrow after it has already hit its target. Halachic drash (interpretation) often employs this particular method in its exposition of traditions.
One explanation I remember reading in a number of Hassidic texts dealing with Hanukkah explains that there exists a linguistic connection between the words çÂðËëÈÌä (ḥănūkkâ) dedication and çÂðÉêÀ (ḥānı̂k) which means, “to train,” or “educate,” as in çÂðÉêÀ ìÇðÇÌòÇø òÇìÎôÄÌé ãÇøÀëÌåÉ “train the child according to his way” (Prov. 22:6). The nexus between these two meanings is obvious: providing a Jewish education for a child is like dedicating him/her to God.
With respect to education, it was customary in Jewish communities to give the child a gift upon entering school for the first time. Maimonides was not at all averse to “bribing a child” in order to acclimate the child to the importance of study. [6] So, it is argued (based upon linguistic sources) that giving a child a gift during Hanukkah is not without some antecedent.
This writer would further argue that gift-giving is specifically mentioned in Numbers 7, which delineates all the sundry sacrifices and financial gifts each tribe gave in honor of the Temple’s dedication. Incidentally, this same theme of gift-giving reappears in the First Book of Maccabees where Judas and his brothers, along with the people, rededicate the Temple by giving gifts to refurbish the Temple.[7]
So, is gift giving such a bad practice during Hanukkah? Traditionalists will definitely prefer giving Hanukkah Gelt; but personally, I see no problem with it so long as we do not include the other Christian traditions of Santa Claus, trees, etc., with the celebration.
Notes:
[1] Take the simple Yiddish word “daven,” which means “pray.” Most Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews would be surprised to know that the origin of the word derives from the Latin, “divina,” which means “divine.” Prayer was the time when ordinary and pious people would encounter the Divine.
[2] Responsa of the Bait Hadash Vol. 1:127.
[3] See Beit Yosef on the Tur O.H. 605, who cites the view of R. Solomon ben Aderet (a.k.a. “Rashba”) and Ramban who prohibit this custom—contrary to the views expressed by R. Hai Gaon. Rashba writes (1235-1310), “I distanced myself from this custom greatly and instructed that it be abolished, and with grace from Heaven my words were heard and, thankfully, the practice no longer remains in our city . . .” R. Yosef Caro's rejection of the custom is all the more striking since he was also a Kabbalist who greatly respected R. Isaac Luria!
[4] The custom of spitting three times when mentioning something good about a person was believed to chase away the Evil Eye. The practice actually goes back to ancient Greece, where the Greeks use to spit three times in the fold of their garments to avoid the Evil Eye. In ancient Rome, spitting on one’s children was believed to magically ward off the influence of the Evil Eye. Since the earliest stages of human history, spitting was believed to contain magical powers—capable of creating life itself (see my blog articles on spitting in rabbimichaelsamuel.com)
[5] The 3rd century Palestinian Sage, Rav Sheshet is purported have to cast his eyes upon a Sadducee, transforming him into a “heap of bones” (BT Berachoth 58; cf. BT Shabbat 34a; Bava Bathra 75a; Sanhedrin 100a).
[6] See Maimonides comments in his Mishnaic Introduction to Helek in Sanhedrin.
[7]1 Maccabees 4:56-58.
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.
