The response of Orthodox Rabbi Alan Yuter above does a great job laying out the Jewish sources on oaths and pledges.  I would summarize that Judaism has always taken oaths very seriously, regarded it as a great sin to break or not fulfill an oath and, therefore, advises us not to make too many of them.

 

A discussion of oaths and pledges in Judaism is not complete without touching on the High HolyDays, Yom Kippur, and the process of t'shuvah (repentance).  If you think that it would be fine to make an oath or pledge that you may not be able to fulfill, but are reassured that you can repent for any failure on Yom Kippur, the mishnah comes to say, "For the one who says, 'I will sin and the Day of Atonement will atone for me, the Day of Atonement does not atone." (Mishnah Yoma 8) Further, if you might think (as do many critics of Judaism) that that is why we have the Kol Nidrei - the prayer which absolves us of all oaths, remember that the intent is for oaths that are forced upon us.  In fact, for this very reason, the Reform movement has, at several times, attempted to ban Kol Nidrei - feeling that it goes against the spirt of Yom Kippur to seek forgiveness before even sinning.  Although Kol Nidrei is now part of the Reform liturgy again, the English "translation" after the words "be null and void" adds, "should we, after honest effort, find ourselves unable to fulfill them".

 

Another note is that when one pledges to donate something (dealt with in the Torah as hekdeish - made holy), there is no going back. If projected produce or land is dedicated to the Temple, it must be given - or, failing that, redeemed by an equal monetary amount.  We can extrapolate this value - if we make a promise to donate, or pledge something, we are obliged to fulfill that promise, whether we feel differently later or not.

 

Disappointingly, perhaps, I'll start off with Shakespeare, rather than a Jewish text - "To thine own self be true." While you are welcome to enter the journey of becoming a Rabbi or other Jewish clergy, as a parent, you are a "spiritual leader".  Invariably, your children will take their religious cues from you - and how you engage Jewish values in making your own decisions. In my work with teens, they tell me that they get their values from their parents.  However, they have no idea where their parents got their values.   Here are some tips in talking to your children:

 

1) Dibur Emet (Speaking truthfully) -  Be honest.  If they can see that you struggle with ethical decisions and, more importantly, often make decisions that you later regret upon reflection, it weakens their ability to write you off as a hypocrite.  (Notice I said "weakens", children seeing hypocrisy in their parents goes at least as far back as Joseph's brothers complaining about Jacob's double-standard with his children.)

 

2) B'shem Omro (In the name of the person who said it) - The Rabbis of the Talmud valued this middah by never stating a teaching in their own name, but making sure to share from whom they learned it.  Do this with your values as well. If you share not only where you learned your values, but also Jewish stories or Hebrew terms that illustrate those values, you will give your children an anchor to sustain them.

 

3) B'tzelem Elohim (In the image of God) - This may be a catch-all value, but it is important in the areas that you have cited.  If we truly believe that we are created with an ideal of the best that can be, then we treat our bodies and our ego with more care and respect. If we remember that all humanity is created b'tzelem elohim, then we give care to what we think and say about others as well.

 

Where do these values (and many more) come from?  There has long been a practice in Judaism known as mussar.  Mussar is the dedicated study of improving ones behavior through specific Jewish texts.  Rabbi Jan Katzew, now Senior Consultant for Lifelong Learning for the Union for Reform Judaism, but formerly Director of Education when he headed a URJ Ethics Initiative, was a proponent for the idea of tikkun middot.  Just as we look to fixing the world with tikkun olam, tikkun middot is the process of fixing ourselves.  The idea (which can be found here explained for families, based on text from Pirke Avot) is that Judaism has many values.  These are separate from the mitzvot, or commandments.  Values are often in conflict.  For example, we might not want to tell the whole truth (dibbur emet) when our three-year old shows us their latest portrait.  Instead, to show respect (kavod), we would praise them for how much work or creativity they have shown.  The most important part is that if we only give commandments (Do this, don't do that), we do not develop in ourselves, or our children, the capacity for moral decision making - needed in any case which might not fit the parameters of a narrow do this/don't do that.   

 

Other resources:

 

The American Jewish Libraries Association has a great list of middot, but no citations.

 

Dr. Eugene Borowitz and Frannie Schwartz wrote an excellent guide for beginners called Jewish Moral Virtues, published by the Jewish Publication Society.

 

If you can find the Winter 1999 issue of Reform Judaism magazine (Vol. 28, no.2), Rabbi Jan Katzew provides a case for tikkun middot in his article, "Repairing the World from the Inside Out".

 

Michelle Shaprio Abraham, RJE [Full disclosure - my wife] created, for the URJ's Ethics Initiatve, several curricula for teaching tikkun midot. You can find most of them at URJ Books and Music, from an adult curriculum on Jonah, to a values based bedtime story for preschooloers.

I leave the explanation of Orthodox "prenups" to my Orthodox colleagues.  However, I would point out that the ketubah itself is very much analagous to the modern pre-nuptial agreement.  The traditional ketubah is given to the bride as a guarantee of what her spouse will provide for her in case of divorce.  In that aspect, it is more like an American prenuptial agreement than the ketubah additions that are a pre-agreement to a get (Jewish divorce document) which hopes to relieve the difficulty of women who find themselves without a husband, but not formally divorced - an agunah ("chained woman").  So, I would say that such agreements are surely in agreement with Jewish law.

 

As to the Jewish value of contemplating the end of a marriage before it begins, we can hear the same argument about the secular pre-nuptial agreement - that couples contemplating marriage remove the worry about divorce so they can enter into marriage with a clear conscience.  Although I certainly understand the distaste that may come in such contemplation, there are many ways to see that providing for a safe emergency exit, though we hope never to use it, is as valuable in a marriage as much as a building.

First of all, Judaism firmly supports that the responsibility of education rests upon the community (when parents are unable to fulfill it).  There is an excellent article explaining the Jewish attitude toward education under the heading of Talmud Torah in Wikipedia, of all places.  However, your question seems to focus on the funding.  Let me answer your questions in turn:

1) What would the rabbis say about making such a notable gift? Kol hakavod.  After all, the rabbis were the educators of their time.  Money to education supported not only their livelihood, but their life's work.

2) Can it be seen as a way to entice other philanthropists to follow in his footsteps?  That question goes beyond Jewish values, except to say that if it is an enticement, than by all means make the gift.

3) Should donations be made publicly, or is this counter to Jewish values? Ah, perhaps this is the heart of your question. What you are recognizing is the contradiction between the Rambam (Moses Maimonides') 8 levels of tzedakah and an analogous concept of Jewish donation we might call b'shem omro.  The rabbinic concept of b'shem omro was about attributing any teaching to the person who taught it originally, and it is a highly-held value not only by the rabbis, but by the intertextual world we live in on the web.  It is a bit of a stretch to apply it to donations, but there should be some name for the Jewish practice of putting a plaque on everything.  This Reform responsa on the (re)dedication of synagogue windows gets at a justification of the practice as people seem to give more when they can place a name (either theirs or a loved one's) where it can be seen. Since this serves the performance of a mitzvah, it is acceptable.  So, while it may not be the highest level of tzedakah to give in such a public manner, as regards the donor, the community may receive even more benefit by the example of the donor being made public.  As long as the mitzvah (in this case of education) is served, a little publicity is fine.

 For starters, let's acknowledge that there may be legal requirements for giving notice, as well as policies in your workplace and/or your contract letter of agreement.  However, that was not the question - you asked for the Jewish way to address "a touchy situation" like this.

 

 There seems to be a wonderful statement from Hillel in Pirke Avot which addresses all sides of this issue.  In three parts, he says:

 

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me?"  - Here Hillel acknowledges that the primary duty for self-protection rests on ourselves.  If you fear that notifying your employer will lead to an early dismissal, then you need not notify them until you have secured other employment.

"If I am for myself alone, who am I?" - Hillel goes on to say that being solely self-centered is not the Jewish ideal; that we have no identity, if we are not part of a community.  Looking, as you have, at the impact that your leaving will have on your workplace (your current community), is part of making a Jewishly ethical decision.

 

"If not now, when?" - As if he were speaking to you directly, Hillel seems to be giving you permission, if you are fed up and are ready to move on without another source of employment, to say to your employer, "This job is not for me.  I am going to look for new employment.  How can I do that without leaving you in the lurch?"

To answer the first question, b'rit milah (circumcision) is not like baptism in Christianity.  A child is Jewish at birth.  Milah is a mitzvah upon the parents, then the community, and if not done by Bar or Bat Mitzvah, upon the child.  An exception might be a child who is born to one Jewish parent. For the Reform movement, a child with only one Jewish parent only becomes Jewish as they participate in the rituals of Jewish life.  I would assume that most Reform rabbis would consider this child Jewish and officiate at a Jewish funeral.  As to name, there is a tradition not to name (or a superstition not to announce a name) before b'rit.  Giving a child a Jewish name is not the province of the rabbi, who only provides advice.  Parents give a Hebrew name, in the same way that they give an English name.

The first determination is whether we are talking about the priest or the patient.  Bikkur cholim - visiting the sick - is one of the mitzvot which has no limit.  Although it may not be incumbent upon the priest to follow this mitzvah, no fault can be put upon him for fulfilling it. As to the patient, he is welcome to any visitor who makes him feel better - and the Rabbis of the Talmud agreed that visiting the sick contributes to healing.  The only caution would be the nature of "praying together".  It would not be acceptable for the Catholic priest, under the guidelines of the Association for Clinical Pastoral Education, to either seek to convert or to ask the patient to pray a Catholic prayer.  (This is from the ACPE code of ethics: "ACPE members... 101.4 approach the religious convictions of a person, group and/or CPE student with respect and sensitivity; avoid the imposition of their theology or cultural values on those served or supervised.")  Jewish chaplains, working in environments with patients of different religions, act in the same capacity - providing counsel and pastoral care to their patients, regardless of their religious beliefs.  As long as the patient has no objection to the priest and as long as the priest does not attempt to engage in prayer that is offensive to the patient, there is no reason to restrict the priest's visits.

The simple answer is yes - if you have done wrong, then, as the Mishnah states about Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement does not atone until you have made things right with them.  Just because they do not know you have wronged them does not mean that they have not been wronged.  A good example of this is lashon hara. You may have said something bad about someone and they did not know it was you, or even that it was said.  However, damage has still been done and you are required to put it right, as best you can.  (It becomes a more challenging question when you have to determine whether telling them what you have done to wrong them may do more damage than the original wrong.)

Judaism has no problem with receiving an organ transplant.  There is some debate in Jewish law about whether one should be a donor, based on the belief that all the parts of the body must be buried in order for the dead to be physically resurrected in the time of the Messiah. As Reform Judaism does not believe, generally, in bodily resurrection, this point is moot.  The Conservative movement has the most admirable position on organ donation, saying that it is a mitzvah.  The Reform movement supports organ donation, but does not consider it a commandment.  An interesting site for an Orthodox point of view is the Halakhic Organ Donor Society (of whom I am a card-carrying member).

 The "Jewish" view on abortion varies based on the stream of Judaism which is answering, although there are some commonalities.  I will address those first and then give the basis for the dissents.  (There is a nice summary of the halacha in an article by Daniel Eisenberg here - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/abortion.html.)

 

First, Judaism regards the life of the mother as a priority in all cases.  A fetus which is a danger to the mother is considered a rodef - one who is pursuing with intent to harm, and therefore even lethal means are acceptable to save the one being pursued.  Second, Judaism considers the fetus as a part of the mother, subject recovery for property damages, until midway through the birth process.  All streams of Judaism recognize the uniqueness of each life, the sacred nature of the act of conception, and the potential of life as important.  However, once the issue moves to consideration of defects of the fetus, ability to raise the child, difficulty in carrying through to gestation, or desire for a child, different streams have different answers.  As Eisenberg states, some Orthodox poskim (halakhic authorities) do not even permit amniocentesis while others permit abortion in the case of the discovery of a fatal disease (such as Tay Sach's) even into the second trimester.  The Reform movement's position can be obscured by its political stance, which is that the decision is personal and should not be dictated by the government - the right to seek an abortion should be available to all, whether or not Reform Judaism practice condones particular cases for particular women.  (Rabbi Jonathan Biatch details the Reform position quite well here - http://urj.org/ask/questions/abortion/.)

 

If one could sum up, the Jewish view on abortion is that there is a value to all human life, even in potential, which should be weighed in any decision.

 

As to the question of a child conceived (or even born) out of wedlock, the answer is much simpler.  There is no Jewish consequence to a child being born out of wedlock.  Mamzerut, the Jewish equivalent to bastardy, attaches only to the child of a prohibited liaison - such as the child of an adulterous relationship (one of the parties is married), or the child of a cohen (preistly family) and a divorcee, etc.  Mamzerut is not a relevant category in Reform Judaism, but does have ramifications in the Orthodox world and for marriage and other religious and civil rights (such as burial) in Israel.  (A good reference is this citation of the Encyclopedia Judaica article by former Israeli Chief Justice Menahem Elon - http://urj.org/ask/questions/abortion/.)