Question: My mother (Christian) lives in a Jewish assisted living home. We picked it based on quality of care, elder values, and proximity to our family. My mom just asked if it was ok to put her Christmas wreath on her door this Christmas. It's March so I guess she is thinking ahead. ;) Would this be disrespectful? While Jewish at its core, it is still an equal housing facility. What should she do? My mom is 92 and I am typing this question for her on that internet thing. LOL.
Thank you for your sensitivity and for your question. Unless the facility has a specific rule against the wreath, your mother should feel free and be encouraged to hang the wreath. I believe that it is important that from a perspective of Jewish values, what is essential is that the elderly in an assisted living facility continue to feel that their space is their own. When your mother was younger, had she rented an apartment from a Jewish landlord, she could practice her religion in the apartment despite the landlord being Jewish.
This is also consistent with Jewish law. Jews are required to remove hametz, leavened products, from all their property on the holiday of Passover. However, if a non-Jew is renting property from the Jew, the non-Jew may maintain their own leavened products even if the home is own by the Jew. We see the rental as being their space.
So, again I thank you for the sensitivity of the question. I wish your mother many more years of health and happiness and in advance wish you all a Merry Christmas.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: It is said that man is the supreme being among all creation. What does Judaism say about this?
Whether man is the supreme being among all creations is a question on which Judaism is divided. Obviously the Supreme Being is God, but God is the Creator and not created, so I assume the question refers to just to the beings God creates. The answers are reflected in the two different chapters in Bereishit (Genesis) that describe Creation.
In the first chapter, man is the pinnacle of Creation. The whole Creation story leads to creation of man, who is given rule and dominion over everything else that is created. Man is told to conquer the world and fill it.
In the second chapter, man is placed into a world that seems to have been created without man in mind and is told to guard and serve it. Whereas in chapter 1, the world seems to be created for man’s benefit, in chapter 2, it is man that is created for the world’s benefit.
This contradiction forms the basis of a famous statement said by the Hassidic master, Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotsk, known as the Kotsker. He said that a person should carry two pieces of paper, each with a Biblical verse. On one should be written, “The world was created for me.” On the other it should be written, “I am but dust and ashes.” The trick is knowing when to take out which paper when.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
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.]
The issue with meat and dairy is not actually about whether or not they touch but whether taste is presumed to have been transferred and that one is tasting the two together. If both substances are cold, we do not presume any taste has transferred. In that case, one would merely need to rinse off the substances to make sure there isn’t residual meat or dairy to be eaten together.
If either the meat or dairy is hot, then we presume some taste has transferred to a degree determined by other factors which would be too complicated to list here. In that case, the entire substance might be entirely prohibited or just an outer layer depending on the circumstances.
Regarding the initial question about milk coming from an animal, at the time an animal is milked the animal is still alive. Meat is only considered meat once the animal has been slaughtered and therefore there is no actual meat coming in contact with the milk. Even if we would consider it to be meat, there is no transfer of meat taste to the milk since as stated above it is all cold.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: What qualifies a cemetery as a "Jewish cemetery"?
A “Jewish cemetery” is simply one in which Jews are buried. I suspect the question is perhaps trying to understand a common misconception that due to certain specific transgressions, one may not be buried in a “Jewish cemetery.” There is in fact no such prohibition. There is, however, a notion in Jewish law of burying one near the people that would be most honorable to that person. We bury spouses together. Many synagogues in America have sections of a cemetery so the members of a community can be buried together.
Along those lines, the Shulkhan Arukh does record a law that one may not bury wicked people with righteous people (Yoreh Deah 367). Furthermore, even a moderately wicked person should not be buried with a fully wicked person. However, one who has repented may be buried with someone who is completely righteous.
That halacha implies that how one lives in life and how s/he is remembered will also reflect on those who are buried near them. As such, it is appropriate for communities, and burial societies to set standards for burial, so that those who are buried among the members of a community honor the others who have passed away by their proximity. [This isn’t always possible once a grave has already been purchased.]
In conclusion, Rabbis felt that in death, as in life, we are often looked at by the company we keep.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: If I have a dairy seder, should I put a bone on the seder plate?
1. Must one have a shank bone on the Seder Plate in the first place? (This is a question not just for dairy seders, but also for vegans)
2. If one were to have a shank bone, how would one avoid the mixing of meat and milk with the dairy served at the seder?
Regarding the first question, many vegans cite the Talmud in Pesachim 114b to claim that one may use a roasted beet on the Seder Plate instead of a shank bone. The Talmud there states that the following foods should be brought before the leader of the seder: charoset, lettuce (marror) and two cooked items. The Talmud asks what are the two cooked items? It answers its question saying beets and rice (there is then a discussion about rice on Pesach). Rashi comments that all the more so two pieces of meat would work.
Since in this age, after the destruction of the Temple, we do not eat roasted lamb in the manner the Passover offering was eaten, and there is no requirement to eat meat at all, it is certainly permissible to use the roasted beet on the Seder Plate instead of the Shank Bone.
The question of whether we will be obligated to eat the Passover offering again when the Temple is rebuilt is an oft debated one. Most Rabbis assume that we will. Others argue (often citing Rav Kook) that there will be no animal sacrifices in the times of the Messiah as animals will have reconciled with humans and attained a higher spiritual living. Still others say that all animal sacrifices will not exist with the exception of the Passover offering as that is the only one specifically mandated in the Torah that everyone bring and eat.
Therefore, the placement of the shankbone on a seder plate even at a dairy meal might invite such questions. And what is the Seder for, if not for discussing our own ideas about redemption and what the future might hold in store for us.
If for that reason, one chooses to use a shankbone, the second question comes into play.
Jewish law allows for two people to eat at the same table where one is eating meat and one eating dairy, provided that they place some type of a “heker,” an acknowledgement to keep them separate. The acknowledgement might come in the form of different place mats, a divider on the table, etc.
Presumably one could then put some acknowledgement on the table to indicate that the seder plate is meat and everything else is dairy. However, this would still be a problem if the leader of the seder eats the seder items (karpas, marror, and charoset) from the seder plate and will be eating dairy as well.
I would, therefore, suggest that if one does have a shankbone at a dairy meal, to first place some acknowledgement on the table that the seder plate is meat (and have the seder plate on some sort of place mat), but then also to remove the seder plate from the table after the necessary seder foods have been eaten and before any dairy is brought to the table.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Is there a value in continued interfaith dialogue with Christian institutions that organize boycotts of Israeli products and divestment from Israel. This seems to be a blatant act to try to deny Israel the right to defend against threats by terrorist organizations that seek Israel’s destruction.
[Administrator's note: This issue seems to have arisen again in recent news (June 2014) with the vote for divestment from companies doing business in Israel by the Presbyterian Church USA.]
Israel’s current President, Shimon Peres, once responded to the question, “how can you talk to so-and-so if they reject Israel’s right to exist?” by saying, “if you refuse to talk to so-and-so, then they will continue to reject Israel’s right to exist.”
The organized boycotts and divestment of certain Christian institutions can certainly be seen as a betrayal of the partnership and support that we have worked to develop. However, the only way to fully convince them that this position is wrong is through continued dialogue.
Nevertheless, while we should support this dialogue, the actions of these institutions should not be ignored and we should not continue with business as usual. There should be some consequences indicating our displeasure and in fact hurt by their actions. So perhaps, certain joint activities should be suspended.
It might help us to remember that even after each and every plague, Moshe spoke to Pharaoh and tried to convince him to let our people go. Dialogue remained a part of the process.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: How does the Jewish concept of justice fit in with the Mitzvah of Pidyon Shvuyim (redemption of prisoners/captives)? The Israeli government has in past freed many prisoners who killed Jewish soldiers and civilians in exchange for one or a few soldiers who were captured. Is letting these murderers and terrorists go an aberration of justice, or do the ends justify the means?
Your question goes to the heart of the difficulty in making ethical decisions, which is when you are weighing two positive values against each other. The question does really suppose two questions: What are the limitations of Pidyon Shvuyim, namely is there a price that is too high to pay to redeem captives? Second, what is the conception of justice particular in reference to criminal justice?
With respect to the first question, the mishna in tractate Gittin (4:6) that we do not redeem captives for more than their value because of Tikkun Olam. The Gemara there posits two reasons for this. One that it would pose an extreme difficulty on the community that would need to pay the ransom and the second reason is that it would provide an incentive for kidnappers to take more Jewish captives in the future. Later commentaries and halachic sources understand the value here to be the value on the slave market.
The concern that if the Jewish community pays too much for captives other Jews would be taken captive has been a real one. There is in fact the famous case of Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg, known popularly as the Maharam of Rothenberg, who was imprisoned in 1286 by King Rudolph I and demanded a large ransom. The Maharam’s student, Rabbeinu Asher ben Yechiel, known as the Rosh attempted to raise the ransom, but the Maharam refused it, lest it provide incentives for other Rabbis to be imprisoned. The Maharam died in prison seven years later in 1293.
The notion of not paying too much for captives does come with exceptions in later halachic sources. For example, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 252:4) rules that one paying his own ransom may pay more than his worth. Earlier authorities debate whether one may also pay more to redeem his wife. The Shulchan Aruch also rules that the community may pay more for a Torah sage.
More relevant to the case of Sgt. Gilad Shalit, many later authorities understand the limit on not paying more than the value of captives only applies when the motive for their capture was financial gain on collecting ransom. However, if there is a real risk that the captive will be killed, then one may pay an unlimited amount (Aruch Hashulchan YD 252:11).
It would therefore seem from the perspective of these sources on Pidyon Shvuyim, as Sgt. Shalit’s life was likely endanger, a high price for his release is warranted. However, his case does bring the concern that the Gemara had that there would be an incentive to capture more Israeli soldiers. Furthermore, there is the concern of your question that many prisoners to be released have engaged in terror and murder and might likely do so again in the future.
This dilemma has been a source of debate among prominent Israeli Rabbis for decades as well. The former Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren believed that Israel should not release prisoners for soldiers on the grounds it would put the lives of other soldiers at risk. The prominent Sephardi Authority Hayim David Halevy, on the other hand, was a vocal proponent of such exchanges.
An additional factor in these decisions which I will not discuss in detail is the compact an army makes with its soldiers – namely the notion of “leave no man behind.” The army tells its soldiers, if you fight for us and your country, your country will do everything to make sure you come home, regardless whether that is dead or alive. Leaving a soldier in captivity might send a message to other soldiers that your country could abandon you if the price is too high.
With respect to the second question about the Jewish conception of justice, we need to first understand what is desired in imprisoning criminals. In the general world, imprisoning prisoners is done for several reasons – protecting society from people who are a danger to society, punishing the criminal, and serving as a deterrent to others from committing the same crime.
Not of all of these reasons are values equally in Judaism. Judaism is very concerned with protecting society from those who are dangerous. Our conception of justice also seeks for a criminal to make retribution for his/her crimes, but there the motive is so that the criminal can achieve some atonement from God and not from a pure desire to punish the criminal.
I think the distinction can be understood through two different Mishnayot. The first found in Makkot (1:10) states that a Sanhedrim that kills one person in a week is called destructive. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says, once in seventy years (would be destructive). Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon say that if they had been on the Sanhedrin, they would never kill anyone ever. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says that they would be increasing murderers in Israel.
The second mishnah in Sanhedrin 9:5 states that one who has received lashes twice, the Beit Din would put him in a cell and feed him barley until his stomach explodes. One who murders without witnesses (or two kosher witnesses) is placed in a cell and fed with bread of adversity and water of affliction. The Gemara later says that this murderer is also fed the barley until his stomach explodes.
The mishna in Makkot (with the exception of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel) seems very concerned with punishing known criminals by putting them to death. The Mishna in Sanhedrin, however, seems to have no qualms with putting to death people even without the proper evidence necessary for Beit Din and hence the execution is done passively through the prison diet.
I think the two Mishnas can be explained by saying that the Rabbis were very reluctant to say that a person deserved to be “punished” or even lose his life according to the Torah and
G-d’s law. At the same time, the Rabbis felt the need to protect society from dangerous people even if it meant their execution.
With respect to the prisoners released in exchange for Sgt. Shalit, is our concern that they would still pose a danger to society or does it simply just bother us that they would be “getting away with murder.” The latter might be a valid concern, but one the Rabbis would be more reluctant to employ when weighed against the life of a Jewish captive. The former is more serious and one to the Rabbis would be very concerned with.
The Israeli government clearly needed to weigh the risks and dangers of the future actions of each released prisoner and there is much to debate there.
This discussion seems that this was never going to be an easy decision. Jewish tradition and law can indicate to us the pros and cons on each side of the debate, but is unlikely to settle the issue for us, and we are likely to debate such exchanges again in the future.
However, at this point, Sgt. Shalit is now home with his family and we should all rejoice in that fact and hope we don’t need to debate this in the future.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: What can a “regular Jew” do to defend misleading media bias against Israel?
As a “regular Jew,” there are several things you can do to defend against misleading media bias against Israel.
First, it is important to keep well informed of the actual facts. I would suggest reading the Israeli press regularly – many Israeli daily newspapers have websites in Israel. There is also the official information put out by the Israeli government and organizations in Israel.
Second, you can use social media tools and your networks of friends, family, and acquaintances to spread facts and another side of the story.
Third, when the media has it blatantly wrong, write a letter to insist on a correction.
Finally, there are many organizations that exist to promote Israel’s point of view as well as monitoring Israel’s bias. Find ones that speak to you and support them in any way you can.
Thank you for the question – Israel needs concerned advocates like yourself!
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: What happens at an "unveiling ceremony"? Are there prayers said, and by whom?
[Admin. note: Another related question on unveilings can be found on the JVO website at: http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=134]
As was previously answered on this site, the notion of an unveiling is a modern custom. What is essential in Judaism is erecting a headstone to mark the grave, known as “Hakamat Matzevah.”
Typically, when erecting a headstone or in the contemporary “unveiling” ceremony, the following are traditionally said: a selection of psalms (Psalm 1, 16 and 23 are usually popular). Psalm 119 is arranged according to the Hebrew alphabet with 8 verses per letter. It has become a custom to read each of the 8 verses corresponding to the letters of the deceased’s Hebrew name from that Psalm.
Afterward, one should read what is written on the tombstone. Some words of eulogy are also often given then.
The ceremony would then conclude with the memorial prayer (Kayl Maleh Rahamim) and if a minyan is present and still within the year of kadish, kadish as well.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Why do we say “baruch dayan ha’emet” when someone dies?
The blessing Baruch Dayan Haemet is in fact recited upon hearing any form of bad news, but most commonly when hearing about someone’s passing. The Mishna in Berachot (54a) states that a person is required to praise God for both the good and the bad. The Mishna there cites the verse that one should love God with all our heart – all of our heart implies under all circumstances, both good and bad. We understand that our relationship with God is total and incorporates both good and bad occasions, but our love is complete.
As for the specific formulation, “Blessed is the Righteous Judge,” we are our affirming that the world is ruled by a righteous judge even when at times, particularly when we hear bad news, from our perspective it might seem that at times justice is lacking in the world. As God declares to Job, his thoughts are not ours, and that God has acted in the world in a way that God sees as just.
In affirming our belief that God is a righteous judge at these moments, we should not derive that there is a never a time when justice is lacking and that we do not have an obligation to seek more justice and healing in the world. While God’s actions are just and we declare so at these tragic moments, it is still our obligation to continue to make progress in healing the sick and uprooting injustice from the world.
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.