Question: I am planning a wedding that will just be a few friends and some immediate family members—basically, the Jewish equivalent of eloping. I come from a physically abusive home (with my mother), and I have not spoken to my mother in years (my parents divorced when I was very young, My father and I have a good relationship, and he also does not speak with my mother). My mother and I have intermittent contact sometimes about obtaining paperwork, but that’s the limit of our interactions. While I do not want to invite this person to my wedding, I worry about the long term consequences of such a choice. What are the Jewish considerations and obligations when making such a decision?
This is a very painful situation, and I am sorry you had to go through it, and to some extent still do. On a technical level, even though there is a mitzvah to honor your mother, and a prohibition to dishonor her, not inviting an estranged and abusive mother to a wedding is not a “dishonor.” In addition to the fact that she is likely expecting not to be invited and understands exactly why, there are other more technical halakhic reasons for why this does not violate the laws of kibud av ve-em (respecting one’s father and mother):
R. Moshe Isserles (Rema) says that we are not required to show respect to our parents when they are wicked (Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 240.18). Although it is difficult to characterize a person simplistically as good or bad, in your case, your mother acted wickedly.
The Talmud (b. Ketubot 50a) says that action done out of respect for parents should not be prohibitively costly, and inviting an estranged mother who was abusive would certainly be that, both emotionally and perhaps even financially, if therapy is involved. (This point was suggested by the contemporary Orthodox poseq, R. David Cohen.)
The Shulchan Arukh writes (Yoreh Deah 240.10) that if a parent has become mentally incapacitated broadly defined (dementia, etc.), and the parent needs the child to take care of them, but the child simply cannot handle the parent’s behavior (perhaps they are being abusive, which happens), they can avoid their parents and hire someone. In your case, your mother doesn’t need you, so you can certainly avoid her.
For a more detailed discussion of these halakhot, I suggest, Mark Dratch, “Honoring Abusive Parents,” Hakirah 12 (2011): 105-119.
To take a broader lens – you mention long term consequences. The question is what kind of consequences are you speaking of? If you merely mean religiously, insofar as Jewish values, I think you have little to be concerned about. But perhaps you mean something more, namely that you want to reconcile with your mother, or at least, to come to terms with what happened to you with her, face to face.
Doing so is entirely your choice, but I wonder if the wedding is really the place to start. You have your life, and your happy place with your future spouse. You have your father and some other family members and your friends – and these are the people you want around you to celebrate the wedding. I think that if this is what you want, go with it. Your reconciliation or not with your mother can happen on a different track.
And if you are worried about whether this will hurt her feelings, I suggest that as you are already estranged from her, she knows your feelings; an artificial invitation would only confuse the issue. In the end, she abused you when you were a child and brought this on herself. If anything, perhaps she can console herself with the fact that you were strong enough to come out from under her abusive behavior, even if she was not herself strong enough to control it. As the consequences of the abuse could have been worse (suicide, drug addiction, etc.), perhaps your independence from her really is the best she could have hoped for under the circumstances.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: I sing in a choir and we sometimes have performances in churches. People who don't know me assume then that I am Christian (without me doing anything obviously Christian). Do I need to correct their mistake and tell them that I am Jewish?
I can think of more than one way to answer this question, depending on the exact situation.
On a technical, halakhic level, I am not sure that people thinking you are a Christian when you are not, actually violates the law of îøàéú òéï (mar’it ayin). According to this law, it is forbidden to do an action that you know for a secret reason is not forbidden, but looks forbidden to others.
The classic example is if you meet you friends for lunch at a treif Burger King, and you bring your own burger from home and eat it there. Now you know that you are eating kosher, but anyone looking at you would reasonably assume that you are eating treif. This is mar’it ayin and forbidden.
Someone thinking you are Christian because you are performing in a church is not necessarily mar’it ayin, unless you are singing prayers that, in theory, reflect the Christian beliefs of the person praying. Moreoever, mar’it ayin is not about someone thinking you are a Christian doing Christian things, that is just a misunderstanding. It is about someone thinking you are Jewish (or recognizing you) and doing forbidden things (like eating treif or worshiping Jesus).
This brings us to another issue.
I am not sure I follow what it means that you are singing in a choir in church. If this means you are singing uplifting songs (not prayers) to entertain the listeners, then this does not sound like a problem. However, if you are leading prayers to Jesus, then I think the mar’it ayin issue is the least of your concerns, halakhically speaking. It is forbidden in Jewish law to pray to other gods, and Jesus is, in most forms of Christianity, a divinity of some sort. If you are in a church, leading prayers to Jesus, you are praying to Jesus, even if you don’t mean it in your heart. This is a problem. In fact, technically, I don't think it is mar’it ayin, since the person seeing you is correctly (not mistakenly) assessing what you are doing.
Assuming either that you will be doing this anyway, forbidden or not, because it is your job/you have made your peace with it, etc., or, alternatively, it isn't a prayer servince but you are just entertaining the listeners not leading prayers, then I think what you might be expressing in your question is that it bothers you emotionally to have people think you are a Christian when you are actually a Jew. Perhaps it also bothers you emotionally for people to think you are singing prayers you really mean when in your heart you are just a performer singing a song, not a supplicant leading a prayer.
I certainly understand that and would feel similarly in such a case. My advice then would be that if you feel you want to share that you are Jewish, and that this service is not actually “your service,” that might be a nice thing. I just caution that you should probably only bring this up if you feel you can do so without appearing rude or dismissive of their beliefs and their service, since this is, in fact, a church not a synagogue, and you are a guest in their institution and not vice versa.
I hope this answer is helpful,
Zev Farber, Zikhron Yaakov
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: May a husband and wife with mutual consent (and assuming niddah, seed spilling, etc. are not an issue) use handcuffs or other restraints or toys to spice things up?
[Admininstrator's Note: Related questions can be found on JVO at:
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=67
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=486
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=978
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=1130]
Let me first answer the question you asked then I want to answer a question you didn’t ask.
Insofar as handcuffs/restraints, as long as there is no physical harm or danger to either party, and there is real (not coerced) mutual concent, I don’t see any problem with it. In fact, in our society, where sex in every form is available to be viewed on the internet (I am not implying that you do this, only stating a fact) and where divorce is rampant, I think it is crucial that a couple keep their sexual relationship fun and vital. If this is something that you both want, it seems harmless enough and if it spices up your marriage, so much the better. Toys, is an even easier question. I see no problem.
Now let me turn to a question you didn’t asked but raised accidentally. There is a perception among many that it is forbidden for a man to ejaculate anywhere but in the woman’s vagina (some people say vagina or anus.) They believe that every other form of ejaculation, whether from oral, manual or any other form of stimulation during the intimate encounter is forbidden. In my opinion this is false.
Firstly, even though this is what Rabbi Joseph Karo writes in the Shulchan Aruch, basing himself on Rambam, Rabbi Moses Isserles, in the same section, based on R”i the elder, states that it is permitted to have a sexual encounter that leads to ejaculation outside of the vagina or anus (called derech eivarim) "occasionally". He writes this in Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 25:2.
Although I am sure that the average rabbi knows this source, for some reason, maybe prudery or excessive "frumkeit", this is hidden from many people in Chattan and Kallah classes. I believe that hiding this is a terrible sin since it creates sexual anxiety in the couple. In a time when marriage is on the rocks, with high divorce rate even in the frum community, and the outside world offering anything and everything, making sex in marriage more tense and less fun may be one of the greatest sins a rabbi can do. (Yes, this is polemical, but I think it is true nonetheless.)
Furthermore, the text of Rambam upon which Rabbi Karo builds his halakha (Mishneh Torah, “Hilkhot Issurei Biah”, 21:9) is actually a censored text. This is a fact. In any uncensored version of the text (see the notes on the Frankel edition for instance), you will see that Rambam too permits ejaculation outside the vagina (derech eivarim) and, unlike Ri, doesn’t even say that this should only be done “occasionally.” He just says a couple can do what they want, no holds barred. These words were erased and replaced with "as long as he doesn't shed seed in vain," but these were not Rambam's words. How much power should a censored text be given? In a sensitive issue like this, I would see little or none at all.
I hope this was helpful,
Rabbi Zev Farber
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: My question is two-fold.
I sort of stumbled upon a blog, where a "high-class escort", is describing her life. In the comments, a religious Moslem guy is chastising her to give up this 'career path' and do tshuva. I wanted to say something from a Torah stand point.
I know what the pertinent halacha/hashkafa (law) is for a Jewish lady. But I'm not sure about a Bas Noach (a female human being, non-Jewish, according to the Noahide laws).
Also, is it a Chilul Hashem (an affront for G-d) for me to even be commenting on such a blog?
Thank you.
Let me first answer the specific questions you are asking and then make a broader comment.
1) If you want to know whether prostitution is forbidden according to Noachide Law, the answer is that it is not. There is a Noahide law that requires society to make rules, so one could argue that if prostitution is illegal in a given country, a prostitute and her/his client would be violating that law, but this is a tangential point.
(BTW, if you want to read up on Noahide laws, there are a number of good books, such as Aaron Lichtenstein’s Seven Laws of Noah and David Novack’s The Image of the Non-Jew in Judaism: The Idea of Noahide Law. There is also a growing community called the Oklahoma B’nai Noah Society, who recently published a ritual guide for prayer and life-cycle events, called Service from the Heart.)
2) If you are worried that it is a Chilul Hashem – no I don’t think that it is. Now, I don’t know what site you are talking about, and you do seem a little sheepish about it (“sort-of stumbled” “such a blog”) so if you mean that it is an “adult website” of sorts, then it might be best not to comment as an Orthodox Jew. Nevertheless, I am not sure even then that it reaches the level of Chilul Hashem if you would comment. A Chilul Hashem generally refers to a Jew behaving in such a way that outsiders will look down on Jews and Judaism. I don’t think trying to articulate your objections to the lifestyle of an escort can be construed as an embarrassment to Judaism, even if it does “give away” that you were surfing on “questionable” sites. There is nothing illegal or immoral per se about reading the “confessions of a escort” even if this might not be the optimal use of your energies from a Torah perspective.
Now I want to take a step back and reflect on what is underlying your question. Why do you want to write this comment? I do not know what brought this woman to her career as a “high class escort” but what is it you want to tell her that she doesn’t already know? Are you going to tell her that the Bible frowns on prostitution? I assume she knows that and has heard it before. Also, it is generally difficult, not to mention somewhat presumptuous, to use your own religious commitments to critique someone who doesn’t share them. Additionally, are you writing because you want to have an effect on her? If so, you should try and think about what would have an effect. Is it because you feel it would be cathartic to speak Torah to her? If that is the reason, she could reasonably counter that you came to her website to satisfy your prurient curiosity and now you feel guilty and are taking it out on her. Is it to counteract the Muslim commenter and offer a different religious response? Not sure if this is valuable, she and other readers may just see the two of you as “the religious fanatics” and miss any nuance.
That said, if you are going to write something, I would suggest hitting on points that most people, irrespective of their religious background, could identify with. (Even if you don’t respond, and I suggest you do not, but it's your call, this may help you think through your message.) Escorts often (though not exclusively) service married men. What are the moral consequences of assisting a man in cheating on his wife? Also, has this behavior contributed to marital friction or divorce? What if he has kids? Now, she can fairly claim that this is his fault and his problem, and I agree, but does she want to be part of that?
Additionally, has she thought about the consequences of this profession on her future? If she wishes to get married and have a family of her own (I have no idea if she does or not) will this hurt her prospects? Will she feel ashamed in front of a future husband/partner or her children? Is she losing precious years of possible companionship in exchange for money and this thrilling but very material lifestyle? Are there dangers involved in this kind of work? (Again, I have no idea, but I can imagine that there could be.) Will this hurt her self-esteem in the long run? Will this hurt her ability to have a fulfilling monogamous sexual relationship in the future? I don’t know the answers to these question but they might be worth pondering.
You could remind her, kindly (and this would distinguish you from the other commenter who chastises her) that she is someone whom people can and do love and who can love others in return. Perhaps this lifestyle, which is very much about her showmanship as an entertainer of sorts, could damage her emotionally or spiritually in a way that will only become apparent later on in life when it cannot be undone.
I am not saying that you should respond or that these thoughts will have an effect or that they are even relevant to her life, but if I were in your situation and felt the need to respond, this would be how I would attempt to offer her another way of thinking about her life and her options without judging her or acting superior.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: (Aside from the obvious answer that the Torah says not to) why can't we mix different breeds of animals? [Administrator note: Presumably this is being asked both in regard to working them, as the Torah states for oxen and donkeys, and in breeding them - mixed kinds, as in 'designer' dog breeds.]
Many rules in the Torah do not include an explanation; therefore, any response is, by definition, speculative. Nevertheless, our tradition contains many such speculations, including with regard to this question.
The Torah contains many rules about not “mixing kinds.” This has been applied to breeding animals of different species, planting different kinds of crops in the same part of the field, grafting branches of one kind of tree onto another (all these are called kilayim, from the old Semitic rout k-l-a, meaning “double” or “two”). The law even applies to wearing clothing made from wool (animal product) and linen (plant product), the mix is called shatnez (meaning of word unknown).
Some have associated these prohibitions with the image of "God as the Creator"—the argument being that God is the creator and humanity should try and keep the world in essentially the same set up that they found it. This stands out in the first chapter of Genesis, which describes God as creating by “separating” one thing from another: light from dark, land from water, etc. This is even how the creation of the Israelite people is described, including in the blessing of the Havdala (God separated Israel from the other nations.)
The matter of working two different types of animals together is somewhat different. In that case, it has been argued that it is difficult for the weaker or slower animal to keep up. The law is probably related to the general concern of not causing unnecessary pain to animals.
Zev Farber
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: May a healthy Jew participate in a phase 1 clinical study used to determine the safety of an investigational drug? Would Jewish parents be allowed to consent to have their healthy child participate in such a study?
This is an excellent question and it needs to be approached from a number of angles. One major question is whether the participant will have need for this drug in the future. If there is a risk that the person in question will eventually succumb to the illness the drug is designed to treat, and the risk is minimal, then I think it is clear that the person may/should participate.
If the drug is something general, perhaps for headaches or some other non-threatening malady, and the person in question wishes to participate as a “good Samaritan,” or for payment, then I believe such a case plays out a tension between two Jewish values. On the one hand is the value of “being very careful with your lives” (Deut. 4:15). We should not take wanton risks. On the other hand, is the value of improving the world, “tikkun olam.” So, if the drug has the possibility of assisting many people with pain or some other problem, and the risk is minimal, I believe that there is no problem participating. Quite the contrary, it is a kindness to those who will use the drug in the future.
Additionally, it is worth noting that the prohibition to take risks does have some minimal threshold. Life is full of risks. Driving a car is a risk; flying on a plane is a risk; mountain climbing, biking on streets, scuba-diving, riding roller-coasters – all of these things carry risks but we don’t forbid them. The question is always the cost-benefit ratio of taking any given risk.
Insofar as children, I believe it is more complicated. In general, a parent should make decisions on behalf of the child that do not require the child to make sacrifices or take risks that he/she does not understand. Again, the question comes down to the level of risk. We do take our children in cars and airplanes, let them go on Ferris wheels or swim in the beach.
Since I do not know the nature of the study, what it hopes to accomplish and what risks it entails, I cannot give specific advice, but “the devil is in the details” with such questions. What I can say is, the more good the study accomplishes and the less risk there is, the more I would be inclined to say that participation is worthy. The less good it does and the more risk involved, the more I would caution against it – certainly if it involves children not competent to make their own decisions.
Finally, I add one caveat. All of the above assumes that everything about the study is above-board and you know what you are getting into. In general, I think the medical establishment in the United States / FDA has a good track record. Nevertheless, sometimes the world is less ideal and honest than we would hope. For this reason I would caution you to look into any study you are considering participating in by finding out as much information as you can, and not from the same source. Sadly, even medicine has had its share of scandals.
Zev Farber, Atlanta
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: What should you do when your personal values are in conflict with a certain ethic at work? What does Judaism say about this?
This is an important question. The balance between being successful at work while maintaining one’s sense of ethics or religious values can sometimes be difficult to accomplish. On one hand, people need to work and make a living and it is important to learn to be accommodating. On the other hand, one’s values and ethics are the core of what defines a person, and giving up on them is almost a mini-death.
As I do not know what particular challenge you are facing, it is hard to give an answer or even a “Jewish” reaction; the devil is in the details. Instead I will offer multiple reflections with the hope that something will be helpful.
If your work environment is not conducive to your acting in a way that would make you feel like a good person, you should think about leaving. This does not need to be done rashly or immediately, but I suggest starting the process. In the end, this will be a constant tension and may cause you to regret your actions in the future and to be unhappy with yourself in the present.
If what you are experiencing is more a culture where you are supposed to turn a blind eye to the ethical lapses of others, you may want to consider how bad the lapses are—are there legal violations that you are aware of, are others being harmed by fraud or abuse or something to that effect? I think that Judaism would not look kindly at even tacit involvement in actions that hurt others or take advantage of them. If this is occurring, I would suggest reporting the activity and leaving. If the violations are less stark and just represent things you would not consider best practices or professional behavior, this may be something you can make your peace with and might not, and I would suggest playing it by ear. If you find that your own ethics are beginning to be compromised, then it may be time to move on.
Finally, if you are in the situation—and I pray this is not the case—where the job is virtually forcing you to behave in a way that you consider to actively violate your own ethical norms, my answer is that you may not do this. A job is a wonderful thing, and I cannot advise someone to take the plunge into unemployment, come what may, but I will say that you should not act unethically under duress or for any other reason. In the end, my assumption is that you will regret this behavior long after this job is a distant unpleasant memory. There is a security blanket of sorts in the USA for unemployment, and, perhaps, this is the situation where it should be used.
Of course, I do not know your financial situation, the nature of your employment and skill sets, or the nature of the ethical violation, (it could be relatively minor?) so I cannot give clear advice. However, the bottom line is that—ultimately, no job is worth sacrificing yourself to. Sublimating your own ethical sense for the short term gain of appeasing an employer or coworker would be, to my mind, an example of being penny wise and dollar foolish in a matter that involves your own soul.
Zev Farber, Atlanta
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Do varying Jewish perspectives on Revelation exist? Can one see Revelation as a human response to an event that defies a simple explanation? Where does rabbinic response or mediation create a contemporary response? What would these varying ideas imply as to how one lives their life?
There are quite a number of understandings of revelation in Judaism. This is true even in the biblical texts. Numbers 12, for instance, describes the difference between the prophecy Moses received—face to face, and that of other prophets—dreams and riddles. Some prophets, like Ezekiel and Isaiah, describe elaborate visions of God, others mainly quote the word of God. Even prophets that quote the word of God seem to be translating the message into their own individual idioms; otherwise the difference in style between the prophetic books would be inexplicable.
The nature of prophecy was debated in medieval times. Oddly enough, the mystical approach and the rationalist approach were nearly identical. The medieval rabbis pictured a sort of divine broadcasting, where the prophets were men and women who succeeded in tuning in properly. The mystics/qabbalists focused on divine emanations and the rationalists on the Aristotelian concept of the Active Intellect, but their descriptions are very similar. Both contrast greatly with the biblical imagery of a personal God holding a conversation with the prophet, such as one finds with Moses and Abraham.
When one gets to the Sages, another lesser form of prophecy begins to be discussed, called ruaḥ ha-qodesh, the holy spirit. This idea seems to be less about direct revelation and more about a divinely mediated experience of great insight. For this reason one finds the assertion throughout rabbinic literature that certain works like the Talmud, Maimonides Mishneh Torah and Rashi’s commentary on the Torah, were written with ruaḥ ha-qodesh.
This last type of quasi-revelation may be the best way to respond to your last question, if I understand it correctly. The Rabbis of the Talmud say that we live in a time of hester panim, the (figurative) hiding of God’s face. The idea of a personal revelation no longer seems relevant and the medieval idea of tuning in to God’s broadcast may seem to abstract (although many religious people still find this appealing). However, the idea that if one throws oneself whole-heartedly into the study of the Torah and the seeking of divine wisdom that God may support this search with the holy spirit, still holds great power.
Many, I believe, have had the experience of finding hidden wisdom in unexpected ways when studying Torah and contemplating Judaism. (Many scientists have reported similar experiences when trying to unlock the secrets of the universe.) To some extent, this ties in with the idea floated by Tamar Ross, called progressive revelation. In order for the Torah to remain relevant and continue to impart wisdom in every age its ideas must grow and mesh with the society to which it speaks. In this sense, revelation continues today as ruaḥ ha-qodesh and is imparted to the honest and good seekers (not only rabbis!) of Torah wisdom.
Zev Farber, Atlanta
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: In Megillat Esther, do we learn that a Jewish woman can utilize her G-d given charm and beauty for a good cause?
Absolutely – but that is not all we learn. Vashti was also beautiful, according to the simple meaning of the text. She had self-respect as well, and would not submit to being ogled and hooted at by her husband’s drunken friends, even at his own request and even though he was the king. However, her beauty and independent will did not protect her from being demoted, exiled or worse (we aren’t told what happened to her). The Megillah begins by teaching us that in the court of a capricious monarch with absolute power, these traits are insufficient.
Enter Esther. She gets chosen as a “contestant” for the juvenile wife-finding method of choice—the beauty contest. She is chosen by the king as the most beautiful, partly due to her innate beauty and charm, and partly due to her wise strategy of only putting on the makeup/outfit suggested by Hegai, the eunich in charge of the contestants. Esther understands that “charm” is not a noun but a verb. In other words, she realizes that Ahasuerus probably has his own taste, and if she wishes to be the queen and not just one of the concubines she should try to “charm” him. That means finding out what he finds attractive, not trusting in her own tastes. Bottom line, Esther brings a new quality to the position of queen—she is shrewd.
This is demonstrated yet again when Mordechai begs her to go to the king and plead with him to save the Jews. Esther intuits that, although Mordechai is morally correct, this will not work. One cannot reason with Ahasuerus; he is a creature of passions. Yet she does not give up on her people. She understands that the first step is a risk. Ahasuerus has not “called on her” (certainly a euphemism) for a month. He is bored with her, perhaps, and it is against palace law for anyone, even the queen, to approach him uninvited. She takes the risk, and he is happy to see her. One danger averted.
However, she does not jump into the pleading that Mordechai suggests at this point; she still doesn’t believe it will work. The king is too invested in his advisor, Haman, whose idea it was to kill the Jews. The last time the king's wife (Vashti) went up against his will and that of his advisors, she was banished. No, Esther would need more than just fairness and beauty to pull this off.
She invites her husband and Haman to a private banquet that she has prepared for them. "Ok," Ahasueros answers, "let’s have this banquet." "But," he thinks to himself (at least so I imagine) – "what is this about? If Esther misses me—why wouldn’t she?—what is Haman doing at this banquet?" As the old Persian saying goes, “Two is company; three is a crowd.” "Oh well," he thinks, "she will tell me what is on her mind at the banquet."
Comes the banquet, and Ahasuerus gently prods. “What is this all about my dear? Anything you want I will grant.” Esther begins to answer but stops. She stammers out that there will be another intimate lunch for three tomorrow, and then she will tell the king what is really on her mind. Now Ahasuerus is worried. "Clearly, Esther is having trouble saying what is on her mind. It must be some sort of problem, something she is afraid or embarrassed to say," Ahasuerus thinks to himself. "But what could it be… and why was Haman invited again?"
And then it hits him—it must be about Haman. “But what embarrassing secret would my wife feel the need to tell me about her and Haman?” Then it really hits him. As any jealous husband would intuit, there can be only one answer to this question. But would Haman really have the gall to have an affair with the queen? How could he not be afraid of consequences? Then this hits him too. As any paranoid monarch would immediately intuit—there can be only one answer to this question. “So,” Ahasuerus thinks to himself, “my number two wishes to be the number one. And the queen—my wife—is in on it.” To quote the Megillah, “that night the king could not sleep.” Hardly surprising.
Think of the intense relief Ahasuerus must feel the next day when, at the party, Esther says what is bothering her. It is not about an affair at all. Someone is trying to kill her and her people. “Oh, is that all it is?” asks Ahasuerus. “This is easily solved. I am the king after all.” He is feeling powerful now. His poor helpless wife is scared. "Well, never fear," he thinks, "Ahasuerus is here." He goes in for the kill. “Who is it,” he asks, “that is threatening you?” “It is the wicked Haman,” Esther responds, with tears in her eyes. “Haman!” Ahasuerus exclaims, “That guy! I hate that guy! Always have!” He has been stewing all night about Haman and Esther and what might be passing between the two—the man had little chance of surviving the day anyway.
In other words, it was Esther’s calculated hedging and her invitation to Haman that planted the seeds of this hatred towards the advisor her husband preferred more than any other just the day before. Although the story has many more fascinating details, at this point the way to the saving of the Jews and the destruction of their enemies was paved.
This was the long answer to a short question. In short, although it is true that Esther used her looks and charm to for a good cause, just as important—perhaps even more so—she used her God given wit and intelligence, her shrewd ability to manipulate Ahasueros’ emotions to position him such that her beauty and charm would work. The lesson of the Megillah seems to be that in a world where God’s face is hidden and capricious, self-indulgent powers reign supreme, we—men and women—will have to use all of our God-given gifts to survive.
Zev Farber, Atlanta
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: What are Jewish values when it comes to work and working?
Jewish sources emphasize two basic work values. The first value can be framed negatively, and that is to avoid being a financial drain on society, so that the community can focus its charity on people in real need, the ones who have no other choice. The second value, and more significant to the Rabbis, can be framed positively, and that is for a person to be a contributing member of society and to participate in making the world a better place.
The early Rabbinic sources are especially sharp regarding the importance of work. A few examples: “Anyone who learns Scripture, Mishnah and has a worldly occupation (this is the meaning of derekh eretz in most Talmudic texts) will not easily sin… but anyone who has no part in the learning of Scripture, of Mishnah, and has no worldly occupation contributes nothing to society” (m. Qiddushin 1:10). “Rabban Gamliel the son of Rabbi Yehudah the Prince says: ‘Learning Torah is good when combined with a worldly occupation, for working tirelessly at both makes any thought of sin forgotten. However, any Torah study that is not accompanied by productive labor will end up in idleness and lead to sin’” (m. Abot 2:2).
The Rabbis seem to believe in a number of benefits to productive labor. Firstly, it contributes to society, making the world a better place. However, this does not seem to be their main concern. More important to the Rabbis seems to be their idea that a person who does not contribute to society, even if he (or she) believes that he (or she) is involved in spiritual growth by studying Torah. The Rabbis believe that, in the end, this type of life-style will fail. The person, focused only on him- or her-self will inevitably fall into idleness. But as bad as idleness may be as a character trait, this is not the Rabbis’ main concern either. Rather, they believe that idleness will lead to sin. In that sense, they believe that a person who expends his or her energy in productive labor on the one hand and growth in Torah on the other—privileging the latter—will virtually guarantee that they will walk the straight and narrow.
Maimonides offers a classic formulation of both these values in his Mishneh Torah (Laws of Torah Study, 3:10-11): “Anyone who has in mind to study Torah but not to work productively, and to live off the public charity has desecrated the name of God, insulted the Torah and extinguished the light of religion… It is an excellent trait if a person can earn his own living, and it is the way of the pious ones of old, and with this a person will earn all the honor and good of this world and the World to Come…”
Now, it is true that in modern society many people make a living from teaching Torah, and this has been accepted as a fair societal trade, since education has become such a high priority. Additionally, it is true that many people, in order to receive sufficient training need to live off grants for a certain amount of time. However, in my opinion, this only makes sense if this education or training is part of an overall plan for the person to contribute to society with his or her education. This is a very important corrective, in my opinion, to the perpetual student found nowadays in certain kollels, especially in Israel.
Finally, the wealthy have an especially serious challenge. According to the Rabbis lack of hard work and feeling of being productive is a cause for idleness and leads to sin. Certainly, somebody who has enough money that he or she has no need to be productive and can enjoy the pleasures of life without concern is in acute danger of this. One only need to read about some of the excesses in some parts of the upper classes to understand the truth behind this concern. For this reason I believe that Jewish values would require even a self-supporting wealthy person to enter into some sort of project (or projects) that can be considered productive to society. To clarify, I do not mean donating money or showing up at an event, but I mean either working a regular job or involving oneself in a volunteer project by putting in real time, real work and real hours towards its success.
All in all, it seems that Judaism looks positively on a strong work ethic, to protect society’s resources, to contribute to a better world, and to build character such that the person will avoid sin and thereby live a good and honorable life.
Rabbi Zev Farber, Atlanta
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: I would like to hear your take on the article in The New York Times (October 2, 2012, "Tattoos to Remember," by Katherine Schulten).
Livia Rebak was branded with the number 4559. Now her grandson, Daniel Philosof, has the same tattoo. At right, three men who stood in the same line in Auschwitz have nearly consecutive numbers.
.WHY did Eli Sagir get a tattoo with the number 157622 inked on her forearm?
WHY might this tattooing practice be unsettling or offensive to some?
WHY did people in the camps “treat with respect the numbers from 30,000 to 80,000,” according to Primo Levi?
About HOW many Holocaust survivors are still alive? etc.
Judaism, as the article mentions generally frowns on tattoos (and body piercing) as it alters G-d's image.
I will be using this lesson, for 8th and 9th graders. Others, in my school will be using it for 7th graders. Thanks.
It is always difficult to write about the holocaust. It almost feels sacrilegious or disrespectful to evaluate any type of holocaust memorial, especially when it is being done in the family of holocaust survivors. Although like all Ashkenazi Jews, I have extended family that were in the Holocaust, my more immediate family have been in the US for generations, so I can only talk about the experience of holocaust survivors from a distance.
As I am an Orthodox rabbi, I will start with Jewish law. According to Jewish law, it is prohibited to get a tattoo. What the reason behind that law is remains a matter of dispute among various religious authorities, but according to the vast majority of halakhic decisors, and certainly following the consensus position for more than a millennium, it would be a violation of a Torah commandment to voluntarily get tattooed. This law is recorded in Leviticus 19:28 and codified in the Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 180. I will point out, however, that the idea that this will somehow affect their ability to be buried in a Jewish cemetery is pure myth. There are no negative consequences to having a tattoo except for the fact that getting tattooed transgresses Jewish law—a negative enough consequence from my vantage point as an observant Jew.
This is my response from the perspective of halakha. However, I assume that the people doing this are not observant (I don't know for sure), and that they are feeling that their lives do not properly reflect the pain of their grandparents who were holocaust survivors. Many of us who grew up hearing holocaust survivors speak at our schools every year on Yom ha-Shoah have been feeling this distance as well, as the memories of the holocaust begin to leave the category of living history and firmly enter the “past” in its full meaning. Many have been feeling that the holocaust was too colossal an event to be relegated to history books, at least for now.
I assume that this feeling is infinitely more acute with family members of holocaust survivors who understand that their grandparents will soon pass on to the next world. Perhaps they feel that the loss of this family-wound would be an insult to their past, their grandparents and the trauma they lived through. Perhaps this is a way of feeling close to loved ones they will soon miss, some way of creating continuity with them. I don’t really know and I cannot judge them. I worry that this will be an act that they may regret in the future and that this type of memorial may backfire, but it may not. I would say that although I cannot identify or condone this practice, I understand where it comes from and I empathize with it. As a community, the Jews need to think about the future of holocaust memorial in our communities and plan for the sad day when no survivors will be left to tell their stories.
R. Zev Farber
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: I'm making the transition into observant Judaism. I've already incorporated many different aspects of Jewish life and practice in my own. The one thing that is most difficult for me is finding kosher meats in my area, specially lamb and red meat, which are meats I love to eat from time to time. Can I purchase organic meats instead, which are more accessible in my area and in this way observe Kashrut? Thanks!
I am delighted to hear that you have connected with Jewish observance and that you are working to incorporate more of our traditional practices into your life. The transition from not keeping kosher to keeping kosher is very difficult (at least that is what I hear—to be fair, I’ve always kept kosher so I don’t really know). As you say, in many places it is difficult to get kosher food, especially meat, which is certainly discouraging. Let me try to answer your question on a number of levels.
If you are asking a halakhic question, i.e. whether it would be permitted according to Jewish Law, classically defined, to substitute kosher meat for organic meat, the answer is no. Kosher and organic are not the same thing. Kosher meat is about what animal it is, how it was killed, and what was done with the blood, the forbidden fat and the sciatic nerve. It is a very technical matter. Organic meat has to do with how the animal was treated, what it was fed in its lifetime, whether antibiotics or other interventions were used, etc. Both, in my mind at least, are valuable but they are neither coterminous with each other nor interchangeable.
Insofar as getting kosher meat, as I don’t know where you live, I don’t know what to advise you. I suggest that if there are observant Jews in your area, or an Orthodox, Chabad or Conservative rabbi or shul, you should call them and ask them where they get their meat. It may be that certain meats or cuts are unavailable in your area, and that is disheartening. For those who keep kosher, that means that such meat will not be eaten. If you are just beginning your journey and are not ready for this, that is understandable. I suggest you make this an exception for the time being with the hopes that you will arrive at keeping kosher fully when you feel you can make that move. If the meat is available but expensive, I can only say that I am sorry for that as well. Sometimes our values come at a premium, but meat is rarely so prohibitively expensive as to require a second mortgage, so it will generally be a question of frequency. I apologize that I cannot be of more help in this regard, but kashrut is what it is.
On the matter of organic meat, I am very glad that this sort of issue speaks to you. There are many fellow travelers who are disturbed by the way animals are treated by certain companies, whether it be with regard to living conditions, or forced feeding, food that causes ulcers and other medical complications, and the flooding of animals with antibiotics which adversely affect us humans in the long run. There are actually kashrut organizations that specialize in supervision of organic meat. You can find a number of their websites online; perhaps you can order from them and get kosher and organic. (Personally, we try to order bison when we can in my family, as their meat is healthier and they are generally treated better than cattle.)
Finally, there is one other issue worth considering, which is the treatment of workers; this applies to all business, but I mean specifically in kosher companies. I have a number of colleagues who were so concerned with making sure that workers in kosher facilities were treated properly that they created the Tav ha-Yosher. If you are the activist type, you might want to get in touch with them and bring the Tav into any local kosher establishments you might have (meat or dairy). You can then have kosher and social justice at the same time (maybe even organic as well.)
I hope this was helpful, and I wish you the best of luck on your spiritual journey. Ours is a wonderful tradition and I am glad that you are deepening your connection.
Zev Farber
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: I live in the US southwest, where there are not a lot of Jews. I was raised in a place where it was the total opposite, and there were synagogues within walking distance.
What are some suggestions for developing a closer relationship with G-d in my circumstances? In my opinion, everyone needs to work on their relationship with G-d. It seems funny, but I do not remember ever in Hebrew/religious school learning about the subject of how to develop a relationship with G-d when you already believe in G-d. What does Judaism tell us about this?
It seems to me that you are asking two different questions. One question is about how to develop a relationship with God and the other is how to adjust to living in an area with no synagogue in walking distance. Let me start with the latter question.
Since you ask about synagogues within walking distance I am going to assume that you do not drive on Shabbat. What I do not know is why you live where you live (I assume that it has either to do with your job, school or spouse/partner). Assuming you must live there, at least for now, I suggest that the first thing you do is figure out which of the closest synagogues you would go to if you lived close enough. Having done this, I would suggest becoming a member, and attending on weekdays, or Sunday morning, or some such thing. Also, I would suggest finding whatever adult education opportunities they do and go to those in addition to whatever holiday events and other social events fit into your schedule. It is very important to feel part of some community, and this may be the best you can do. Also, depending on your family situation, you may want to spend a Shabbat in that community every once in a while.
Your ultimate aim, in my opinion, is to eventually find a Jewish community you are comfortable with and try to live there if at all possible. This goes doubly if you have children (whether now or in the future). Judaism is a religion of peoplehood and community, in my opinion, and to really feel this you (and your children) have to be part of one.
To answer the former question about getting close to God, this is a very personal matter. There is no one way to connect to God. Some people are very cerebral and do this by study; others enjoy a prayer service with singing and dancing, and others prefer meditation and mysticism (I am sure there are other ways as well). All of these ways of connection are legitimate, and probably some combination is ideal.
Insofar as studying (my personal preference) if there are no outlets for this in your area there are many online programs that you can involve yourself in, not to mention self-study, summer programs (if you have summers free), etc. For prayer experience, again I suggest finding a synagogue as close as possible. Maybe some of them do early Qabbalat Shabbat and you can join them for that and get back home before sunset? Insofar as meditation, this depends on whether you prefer personal or group experiences. Unfortunately, this is out of my depth and I hope others will be able to offer more guidance.
Finally, all Jews, I believe, are supposed to connect to God through the performance of mitzvot. This is true for ritual mitzvot, like eating kosher or wearing tefillin—it might be worthwhile to learn more about these and work on your performance of them. It applies equally for ethical mitzvot, like treating people kindly, business ethics, and other social justice issues. If this latter set of mitzvot interests you, you can contact Uri l’Tzedek (http://www.utzedek.org/), for example, and try to get involved with one of their projects. Luckily, with God being infinite, there are many ways of connecting to God.
Good luck on your journey,
Zev Farber
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Israel's Interior Minister said that he is putting the needs of Israel first by sending back illegal African immigrants. But does Israel, of all countries, have a right to be xenophobic? Do we concentrate on our internal problems at the expense of isolating ourselves from the needs of others?
In certain ways this is a very easy question and in other ways it is a very difficult question. However, at the risk of sounding discourteous (and I deeply apologize if what I am about to say comes off this way), I cannot answer the question as you phrased it.
Your direct questions are phrased more as rhetorical statements than as questions. No, Israel of all countries does not have a right to be xenophobic. No, Israel should not concentrate on internal problems at the expense of isolating herself from the needs of others. However, I believe you already know this, and the issues surrounding illegal immigration are significantly more complicated than this.
To be clear, I have no sympathy for some of the racially based anti-immigration propaganda that has unfortunately seeped into the political discourse in Israel, especially in South Tel Aviv. The rabbinic organization with which I affiliate—the IRF—put out a statement to this effect, which I fully supported as a board member.
That said, I would like to address a more complex question: Assuming the government is not acting (or stops acting) xenophobically, and does not give in to racial prejudice, what is the proper way for the government to think about immigration policy and how should illegal immigrants be treated?
Here, I believe, we have a classic example of competing values. On the one hand we have “love the stranger in your midst” (åàäáúí àú äâø; Deut. 10:19) and the exhortation not to oppress the stranger in your midst (åâø ìà úåðä/åâø ìà úìçõ; Ex. 22:20, 23:9). On the other hand, since Israel, like any other country, is a place of limited resources, we come up against the requirement for Jews/Israelis to make sure their own needy are protected first (òîé åðëøé – òîé ÷åãí, òðéé òéøê ÷åãí; b. Baba Metzia 71a).
The exact way to navigate between these two values is a complex one, and I am far from qualified to answer such questions. But I would say this: I believe Israel has a right to have an immigration policy based on an attempt to ascertain how much immigration from foreign countries Israel has the ability to absorb without creating undo pressure on the economic stability of its own citizens, especially its poorer citizens.
Much of what occurred in South Tel Aviv had to do with lower class Israelis feeling that they were paying for the government’s unwise immigration policies. As horribly as the situation played out, and recognizing that the flames have been fanned by cynical politicians and racially-colored rhetoric, one must not forget that in the midst of this there are poor Israeli citizens who feel that they have been sidelined by their government policies and made to absorb more than their “fair share” of underemployed illegal immigrants. Much of the crime that occurs in South Tel Aviv, (up to 40% in recent estimates)—including violent crimes like the rape of the 15 year old girl that helped set off the protest—is committed by the immigrant population.
On the other hand, I believe that Israel should be especially open to refugees from persecution; our own recent history tells us the horror of being persecuted with nowhere to go. Israel should be that somewhere (so should America, in my opinion). Of course, the Israeli government must think long and hard about how they can do this without the poorer elements among the actual citizenry having to pay the price.
I do not know what should happen with illegal immigrants. I am not knowledgeable about deportation policy and how this affects deportees. I know there is an attempt to build a fence across the Egyptian border to help control illegal immigration, but I don’t know much about how this works or how effective and humane it will be. However, I will offer a few broad comments from a Jewish values perspective. (For a similar take to mine, see Dov Lipman’s excellent and nuanced op-ed.)
First, one cannot take a “rosh qatan” policy where one ignores what will happen to the refugees if they are returned home. It is one thing if the illegal move to Israel was simply an attempt at a “step up”, socially or economically. It is something entirely different if the homeland of the immigrant poses a threat to his or her person. It is immoral to send an immigrant back under those conditions.
Second, I do not know if there is a statute of limitations on illegal immigration, but there should be, especially if there are children involved. Once someone has lived in Israel long enough—I do not pretend to know how long this is—that he or she feels like an Israeli, deportation should no longer be an option. De facto, this has become their country. This is especially true for children who grow up Israeli.
Finally, as long as the immigrants are in Israel, they have to be treated with the upmost fairness and respect. It is forbidden to mistreat a stranger just because he or she is not “one of us.” “úÌåÉøÈä àÇçÇú åÌîÄùÀÑôÈÌè àÆçÈã éÄäÀéÆä ìÈëÆí åÀìÇâÅÌø äÇâÈÌø àÄúÀÌëÆí” (Num. 15:20), the laws of Israel and fair treatment apply equally to citizens and foreigners alike.
Zev Farber
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Is there any legitimate basis today to the Jewish concept of mesirah (the prohibition to inform to a secular government) when it comes to child abusers/molesters? Either in Israel, or anywhere else in the world?
The short answer: No, there is no basis nowadays for this. Jewish criminals should be reported.
The long answer: Mesirah is referenced in rabbinic literature as one of the worst sins possible. There are statements to the effect that one who turns a fellow Jew in to the authorities receives no share in the world to come and even that he or she should be killed outright if the opportunity presents itself. (See, for example, Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Assault and Damages, 8:9-11.)
Why the extreme animus towards the moser? I think that this needs to be understood in its proper cultural context.
Before the advent of modern American-style democracy, the relationship between government and governed, when the governed were a distinct ethnic group, was akin to negotiated settlement between two antagonistic populations living in a tentative state of coexistence. In this order, Jews were a distinct group and seen as such both by themselves as well as by the government authorities.
In this situation there were times when things were better for the Jews and times when things were worse, but the relationship between the Jews and the government/majority population was always tense. Even where the Jews had rights, those rights were generally secondary and contingent upon good will and the current political climate. Additionally, in many of these communities, such as Roman Palestine or Medieval Spain, the Jews had rather robust means of internal policing and legal self-determination, at least over their own population.
Considering the above, it was considered to be the absolute height of treachery for a Jew to take a local problem to the government. First of all, the Jews had their own courts with enforcement power. Second of all, any case involving “Jewish crime” had the possibility of tipping the scales of governmental policy to the detriment of the Jewish population, sometimes even acting as an excuse for a pogrom. It was not lightly that the rabbis condoned murdering such a person.
However, the modern democratic society is a different animal altogether. Although Jews (as well as other minorities) can still be understood sociologically as a discrete unit, the Jew is as much a citizen of the country as anyone else. There is no us-and-them, in these systems we are all “us”. (I first heard this point, or something like it, in a lecture from Rabbi Aryeh Klapper on the Meiri, a version of which can be heard heard here.)
Hence, the governmental organizations that function to police or punish criminals are really an extension of us as much as of our Gentile neighbors. Since the government is not a separate entity but our representatives, there is nothing “treacherous” about turning a person in. The same is true for many other countries nowadays, including Israel.
Although one could make the halakhic argument that an observant Jew should have his or her financial disputes adjudicated in a religious court, not doing so would violate the prohibition of arkaot (going to secular court) but would not be mesirah. When it comes to criminal court, since there is no such thing as a religious Jewish court with criminal jurisdiction, one has no choice but to report people to the secular authorities. One must protect the victims here not the criminals, and this is the only viable way, in the US, in Israel, and, basically, everywhere else Jews live nowadays.
The only time/place one may not report Jewish criminal activities to secular authorities is if the government is in an antagonistic relationship to a distinct and ruled subgroup of Jews who would be endangered by this – but this is not relevant in modern democratic societies. In our societies, Jews who engage in criminal activities may be reported, and should be. If this Jew is endangering the welfare of other people, Jews or Gentiles, whether by fraud, violence or sexual abuse, he or she absolutely must be reported.
I hope this was helpful,
Zev Farber
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: I am dating a non-Jewish man who I love deeply. I'm still a virgin but thinking about having sex sometime soon. I still want to marry a Jew in the end, so if I've had sex with a non-Jew, will a Jew still marry me or would I be considered tainted?
Love and sex are always complicated issues. I will give you a straight answer to your question but I would also like to address what seem to me to be the underlying issues behind your question. Also, how I discuss the topic differs depending on whether I am talking to an adult, with all of an adult’s life-experiences, or a teenager. Although I suspect the latter, I will try to answer in two ways so as to be relevant to your age and life-experience, which I do not actually know.
On the simplest level, according to strict halakha, if a woman has relations with a non-Jewish man, she is definitely still eligible to marry a Jewish man. There is no taint. However, she may not marry a kohen, but this rule is generally only enforced in the Orthodox community. Lack of virginity itself, in some communities, may affect the wording of a ketubah (the document has the word virgin in it) but many communities, even Orthodox ones, often leave the word in any way for first marriages.
Insofar as sex with a Gentile man goes, halakha does not permit this at all, nor does it look favorably on pre-marital sex in general – but you did not ask me this, and it is a decision you will have to make on your own.
That said, let me share with you my concerns about your question, not from the perspective of Jewish law but from a pastoral perspective. You are saying that you love this man deeply enough that you are planning on losing your virginity with him but you seem to have – or believe you have – no intention of marrying him. Personally, I find this sentiment somewhat worrisome. The reasons for this differ significantly depending on your age, so here I will explain twice.
If I am speaking with a teenager (or even a very young adult), I have a number of concerns. Although I am well aware of the fact that teenagers having sex has become more common in recent years, this often comes with negative consequences. I am not referring here to pregnancy or STDs, although I will assume here (I hope not naively) that you are aware of these risks and how to prevent them. What I am referring to is the emotional risk. Although in a committed relationship sex can build up a person’s self-esteem and self-love, in a non-committed relationship it can have the opposite effect, especially on young girls.
I fear that in our promiscuous society, many girls (and women) suffer from body image doubt and low self-esteem and mistakenly believe that making boys/men “happy”—at whatever cost—will help with this. In my estimation, however, it generally has the opposite effect. Sex is a very personal and intimate activity, and girls may feel degraded having exposed themselves in this way to a boy who then moves on to someone else. Boys (and men) have the unfortunate tendency to commoditize girls (and women)—the proverbial notch on the belt—and you do not want to expose yourself to this. (I recommend Wendy Shalit’s books A Return to Modesty and Girls Gone Mild if you want to give this more thought.)
Of course, you write that you love him and I hope that this means you are in a committed relationship with him. And yet, you are not even thinking of long term with him, which I assume is because you are too young to think of marriage. But you still do not think you are too young to think of sex or to know when love is commitment or love is a short term burst of feeling that will fizzle out. In short, I worry you are more confused than you know or let on, and would caution you to be careful. If you are planning on sex at a tender age—and I do not advocate for this—listen to your gut and never do anything that the back of your mind says you will regret… your subconscious knows what it is talking about. Also, just to be safe, please never make any important decisions while intoxicated or under pressure.
If I am speaking to an adult, especially one who has dated for a while and not found someone, this must be a confusing time for you. Finally, you found someone you love and you are planning on starting to be intimate with—the type of relationship many of your friends probably already take for granted—and he is not Jewish. Here is my question for you: how are you so sure you will not marry him? You love him, you will be sleeping with him and you are both adults – this is exactly what leads to marriage.
Is the only reason you do not think you will marry him because he is not Jewish? If that is it, I believe—if the relationship is a good one—you will soon find yourself wanting to marry him. I suggest you start thinking about how important it is for you to marry a Jew. If this is very important to you, I suggest you either break off the relationship before doing so would be impossible or speaking frankly with him about whether he would be willing to convert. If he would not be, would he be willing to assist you in bringing up the children Jewish, join a synagogue, etc.? On the other hand, if you feel that discussing marriage with him would be premature, or that he would never consider it, maybe sleeping with him is premature as well.
Either way, whether you are a teenager or an adult, keep this in the back of your mind: even if you make the wrong decision here, don’t be too hard on yourself, relationships are tricky things. Just try—as you are doing—not to lose sight of your ultimate goal to marry Jewish and start a Jewish family.
Good luck,
Zev Farber
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Do you think Jews appearing on reality television shows can be a good thing for the Jewish people? When so much press about religious Jews is negative, could this be a positive step?
I will begin with a short quote from the Simpson’s episode “Like Father, Like Clown.”
Jewish Man: Rabbi, should I buy a Chrysler? Rabbi Hyman Krustofsky: Could you rephrase that as an ethical question? Jewish Man: Um... is it right to buy a Chrysler? Rabbi Hyman Krustofsky: Oh, yes. For great is the car with power steering and dyna-flow suspension.
I begin with this quote to express that I am not used to answering questions about whether something will be good for the Jews or not, nor do I feel particularly qualified to do so. I am more accustomed to answering questions about whether doing something fits in with halakha or Jewish ethics. That said, I will offer my thoughts on the question you asked, but only after I answer the question you didn’t ask.
You didn’t ask whether it is a good thing for the person him- or herself to take part in a reality TV show. Nevertheless, I feel this should be addressed first.
I confess that I do not generally watch reality TV, so I am speaking only from my impressions of what few examples I have seen and what I have heard from others. Reality TV tends to feed off of people’s voyeuristic impulses by seeing other people in “real situations” (I am sure they are quasi-scripted or controlled in some way) acting wildly or exposing their weaknesses and idiosyncrasies. Of course, I cannot say that this is true across the board, as I do not know, but I think it is true as a general rule. Therefore, I do not look favorably on anyone (Jew or Gentile) being on a reality TV show where they can be exploited, mocked or made to act immorally.
That said, I will respond to your question. Given that Jews will be on reality TV, can it be a good thing for us? Yes, maybe, but not in all cases. The person would need to act morally while on the show. If the person behaves immorally and earns the contempt of the viewers, I cannot see how this would help. On the other hand, if the person behaves morally, and earns the respect of, or at least the fondness of, the public, then that could be a good thing. It may create positive associations to Jewish people in the minds of his or her viewers/fans. Additionally, if this person really develops some level of fame or prominence, he or she could use the public attention he or she receives in a positive way, by calling attention to Jewish causes and developing the image of an upstanding Jewish celebrity.
The opposite could happen as well, however. If the person behaves immorally, this could backfire and solidify bad Jewish stereotypes in certain viewers. Also, since many stars of reality TV shows make public spectacles of themselves this could have a bad effect as well. The person’s behavior together with how the producers use said person’s character on the show will determine the public reaction.
Truthfully, Jews appearing on such shows will, most probably, have little or no effect one way or the other, unless the show highlights their Jewishness as it did in Shmuley Boteach’s Shalom in the Home, an example of a reality TV show that probably had a positive effect overall. On most shows, the person will simply be another contestant/actor and his or her religion will be of little relevance.
I am just guessing, of course, as my rabbinic training gives me no more power of prediction than anyone else. Only time will tell.
Kol Tuv,
Zev Farber
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.]
Contemplating one’s death is a painful endeavor. It is difficult to find meaning in what appears to be the most obvious demonstration of meaninglessness – the transformation of our lives into non-existence and our bodies into dust. Different religious traditions have determined what appears to them the best way to go about this. The Jewish tradition has advocated burial in a Jewish cemetery as its “gold standard” for proper treatment of a body. This is not about having the body underground per se. In fact, in ancient Israel they placed the dead in burial chambers until the body decomposed and then gathered the bones and placed them in a family tomb. Rather there are two main concerns about treatment of the deceased.
1. Leaving the body out – The Torah says (Deut. 21:23) that leaving a body unburied – disrespecting it in that way – is a curse on God, since humans were made in God’s image. In fact, leaving a body unburied is considered such a sacrilege that the high priest, who is usually forbidden to touch a dead body, is permitted – even required – to himself bury a corpse he finds abandoned.
2. Disturbing the body – Halakha takes the idea of respecting the dead very seriously. It is forbidden to disturb the dead and there are very strict rules about disinterment (Shulḥan Arukh YD 363) as well as protocol for how to behave in front of a body or in a cemetery (Shulḥan Arukh YD 367-368). Even speaking about matters of the living, learning Torah or openly performing mitzvot are considered “teasing the dead” (lo’eg la-rash).
Considering the above, as an Orthodox rabbi I cannot really suggest anything other than burial. However, as you began your question by stating that this is – for whatever reason – not an option you are willing to consider, I will try to think creatively with you.
I understand your desire to be helpful to the world after your deaths; I really do. This is an admirable sentiment and people like you do the world credit. Of course, there are varying degrees of helpfulness when it comes to donating one’s body to science. Certainly, there is precedent for it – whether it be organ donation or allowing autopsies when the doctors need to understand how a person died. On the other hand, I am far less comfortable with unspecified donation to science, where the benefit is significantly less tangible, like in the famous “Bodies” exhibition or the man and woman who donated their bodies to be thinly sliced so that 3D images could be created for computer study (the Visible Human Project). Your case of body farms seems somewhere in between these extremes – it has no immediate benefit or point like organ donation and autopsy but seems less disrespectful to the dead than the Bodies exhibition or the Visible Human Project.
Therefore, I would like to suggest a compromise. If you have your hearts set on this approach, would it be possible for you to have your bones buried in a Jewish cemetery after your bodies have decomposed? (I know it feels awful to speak this way, and I apologize, but it is the nature of the question.) Burial in a Jewish cemetery has been a cornerstone of Jewish practice and identity for millennia, and it feels as if ignoring this is almost tantamount to turning your backs on your Jewish identities at the very end of your lives. To me, it feels sad and unnecessary. The gathering of bones into a family sepulcher is a time-honored and ancient tradition, and would still allow you to participate in the body farm project. Assuming a Jewish cemetery would allow it, this would be my suggested compromise.
Finally, I want to end with one thought, which I am sure you considered but it would feel wrong not to mention it. Although the halakha concentrates on treatment of the dead, it is vitally important not to forget the living. I am not referring to the scientists here, but to your children. I have no idea what their feelings are about the body farm, and I am sure you have discussed it with them. I just wanted to emphasize that your real legacy in life – or at least one of them – is your children.
Moreover, it is not the dead that suffer, but the living that loved them and miss them. I cannot emphasize enough that it is important that your funeral arrangements not be traumatic to them and not alienate them. I can’t imagine that any concerns about being useful could trump any deep hurt or anguish a controversial decision about the disposal of one’s body may cause to one’s loved ones. Again, I am not saying that you have not ascertained your children’s feelings; I only wanted to make this point explicit just in case.
I hope this was helpful and that you have a long time ahead before this decision becomes practical,
Zev Farber
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Is it permitted for a practicing Conservative Jew (or others) to follow a Western Sephardic minhag (customs, other than their own family's)? I am Conservative through and through, but follow a Spanish-Portuguese minhag at home and with children and grandchildren. I don't make an issue of this in the community (which is largely Ashkenazic, not Sephardic), but prefer to attend a Spanish-Portuguese synagogue during the High Holidays if possible.I feel the two traditions are very close. Please understand, I am clear that I am a Conservative Jew. Is there any problem with this?
Insofar as whether there is a special connection between the Conservative movement and Ashkenazi practice, I do not think so but admit that this is beyond my competence as an Orthodox rabbi. Hopefully, the Conservative respondent will be able to shed some light on this. (Anecdotally, I was brought up Conservative and my father is a Conservative rabbi and we all followed Ashkenazi customs. This is probably the prevalent practice among Conservative congregations, but I do not know if it is a hard and fast rule.)
Insofar as what customs a person is allowed to follow, it is first important to divide the concept of minhag into two categories, public and private. The key rule for minhag is that a person should follow publicly that which the community he or she lives is in does (m. Pesaḥim 4:1-5, Shulḥan Arukh YD 214:2). This applies to differences between Ashkenazim and Sephardim but also to a whole slew of other practices. This concept is called minhag ha-maqom.
Additionally, people generally follow the custom with which they were brought up. Ashkenazim keep Ashkenazi practice; Sephardim keep Sephardic practice, etc. That said there has always been room for change and growth in this regard. Certainly, people who move into new communities often adopt some of the practices of that community even privately. Also, as people grow in their religious development certain practices and customs may fit better with their new perspectives.
Hence, in answer to your question I would say that there is no harm in adopting Sephardic minhagim if this feels like the best fit for your religiosity. Considering the fact that you have been doing this for years and that your family practices this way as well, I would venture to say that “facts on the ground” have established this as your family’s minhag.
Insofar as how this plays out with your community, this is a more complicated question. In pre-modern times, where there were tightknit communities, having personal practices that differed from the community in which a person lived was complex. Certainly, in shtetl life it would have been well-nigh impossible to practice differently without it causing some sort of community ripple in all but the most private matters. However, nowadays, there is a serious question whether modern communities can really be said to extend outside the walls of the synagogue.
Consequently, I suggest this overall approach: Anything synagogue related should be done according to the community’s practice. Anything personal or family-related should be done according to the Sephardic minhagim you have adopted. However, if you invite people to your home from your community – a meal for example or a home-based prayer service – you should adopt the community’s standards for this event.
Finally, you should feel free to attend whatever synagogue you wish for High Holiday services. Meaningful prayer is a very personal matter and it is nobody’s concern but your own where you pray. The one caveat I would mention is that if your own synagogue is having trouble making a minyan (prayer quorum) and you can help, you should take this responsibility seriously, albeit within reason. However, as this is rarely if ever a concern for the High Holidays, this would not seem to be a factor in your situation.
I hope this was helpful.
Zev Farber
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: What is proper or expected with respect to co-workers and employees attending a funeral? If I work for a Jewish manager but did not know the family and deceased relative (parent), should I attend to show respect for the living?
To answer this question, I would like to divide the issues into two categories: responsibilities to the deceased and responsibilities to the living.
Insofar as paying respects to the deceased, it used to be that everyone in a town went to everyone’s funeral (Shulḥan Arukh YD 361). However, this was the rule for small village communities. Nowadays, one would only be required to attend a funeral if not attending would be an embarrassment to the deceased. Usually, this would be because one is such a close friend or relative that he or she would be expected. It could also be because so few people in general are attending the funeral that everyone who can attend should; sparse attendance may imply that the deceased was not important or well-liked.
Since you did not know the deceased, assuming you have no reason to believe that the funeral will be drastically under-attended – and it is not your responsibility to ask, as this is unusual – you do not need to attend the funeral to honor the deceased.
Insofar as honoring the living, this can be done in a number of ways. Although certainly your friend or co-worker will appreciate your showing up to his or her loved-one’s funeral, this is generally not expected. Additionally, mourners are often emotionally preoccupied during funerals, as they should be, and the appearance of acquaintances is a secondary or tertiary issue in their minds, if they notice it at all.
The main way in Jewish law and practice to show sympathy and solidarity with the mourner is during the shiva period (Shulḥan Arukh YD 376). During this period, the mourner sits in his or her house and receives comfort from visitors. If your friend or co-worker will be sitting shiva, and you feel that it would not be awkward or inappropriate to make a shiva-call, this would be my first suggestion. Shiva is a time for mourners to express their feelings about their loved one or about their loss or other related subjects on their mind.
If the person will not be sitting shiva, I would even suggest that you offer to sit with them, perhaps over a cup of coffee, and talk, mimicking the shiva experience in some way and allowing them to reflect on their lost loved one. However, if you feel that this would be awkward or inappropriate, or somehow not in keeping with the nature of your relationship with this person, then I would suggest either offering them your condolences with a card, or an email, or even a small charitable donation in the deceased’s honor.
I hope this answer was helpful to you,
Zev Farber
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.
