Question: Even though circumcision is to enter into the covenant of Abraham, what about aesthetics, health, hygiene, and sanitation?
Isn't circumcision for those things, too?
The only reason to circumcise one’s son, (or have oneself circumcised, if one is a convert or was not circumcised as an eight day old infant—or as a child) according to Jewish tradition, is as a sign of the covenant with God. The act of circumcision itself is not the entering into the covenant, the circumcision is a sign of the covenant. Girls and women are also part of the covenant even though they are not, nor should they be circumcised. There are also certain specific situations when boys need not be circumcised, yet they are still part of the covenant (though they are excluded from some—no longer relevant—rituals). There are many conflicting arguments and medical studies about the health benefits (or lack thereof) of circumcision. None of this is relevant to circumcision as a religious practice. The only benefit of circumcision, as far as the tradition is concerned, is that it is a sign of the covenant that God originally cut with Abraham.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Indirectly related to the recent Donald Sterling/Clippers saga, while racism shouldn’t be tolerated, my question in terms of values is: should someone whose private conversation is unknowingly being recorded be subject to persecution when he is not intending to publicly voice his feelings, views, or beliefs? Is there a difference with intentionally public ranting racist remarks, as opposed to expressing personal thoughts in private to yourself and your close confidants?
First, it must be noted that racism, per se, is a hillul hashem, a desecration of God's name. This because it denies the fact that all people are created in the image of God, or, as the mishnah in Sanhedrin (4:5) writes: “For this reason the Adam was created as an individual, … so that there would be harmony among people, so that one would not say to their fellow ‘my father is greater than your father;’ and so that the sectarians should not say ‘there are many powers in Heaven.’” Racism is a notorious way of denying another human their Divine image, and by implication denying that all were created by God. This is a hillul hashem. For this reason the Babylonian Talmud categorizes the apikorus or apostate as one who “has spurned the word of the Lord.” (Numbers 15:31, Sanhedrin 99a). A hillul hashem is worse in public, but even in private desecrating the name of God is a very serious offense. According to Jewish, however, “public” is constituted by three or more people, so it is not clear to me that according to the canons of Jewish law, and even more so according to Jewish values, racist remarks made often to close friends constitute “private remarks.” Public in the Sterling case implies the media, but in fact the media just magnified the already existent desecration of the name of God.
The condemnation of a person of great power, wealth, and therefore social, cultural, and political influence because of racist remarks is a proper way for society to distance themselves from those remarks. It is an appropriate way of saying: “That is beyond the pale.”
At the same time, this condemnation, while appropriate, takes no real sacrifice on the part of the people doing the condemning. We must all work to root out racism everywhere—in our own hearts and minds first, perhaps, but also in the education system, in the justice system, in our democratic culture. We have to reform prisons and sentencing (The New Jim Crow), we have to stop criminalizing everyday life so kids (overwhelmingly black and brown kids) who misbehave are incarcerated rather than educated, we have to enforce the right to vote for everybody. That will counter the desecration of the name of God with a kiddush Hashem, a sanctification of the name of God.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: I converted to Judaism with a Reform rabbi, and my husband is not Jewish. We have two children, a daughter and a son, whom we have raised Jewish; they each had a bar/bat mitzvah, and my son attends a Jewish high school. As they begin to date, would there be any reason I or they should inform the other parents that I converted?
There is absolutely no reason to disclose this—nor is there any reason to hide it. However, your conversion should be something that comes out—if it does—when your son or daughter decide to talk about it. From your question I hear a hesitation about considering yourself Jewish or a fear that others might not consider you Jewish. You were converted by a rabbi, and you accepted membership in the Jewish people with the rights and responsibilities that come with that, in good faith. You are Jewish. If you converted before your children were born, then they too are Jewish. If your children decide to join a community that has different conversion standards then that will be their choice and they will deal with that.
When your children decide to marry they will tell their intended life partners what is necessary and then will make decisions based on that. Right now they should enjoy themselves in this, the month of liberation.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: My girlfriend runs a business selling hand-spun tzitzit (fringes for a ritual prayer shawl). Recently, a customer asked her if he could send her his tallit (prayer shawl) and have her tie the new tzitzit directly onto it. She agreed, but was surprised to find, when the tallit arrived, that it was a Messianic (a non-Jewish, fully Christian group that usurps Jewish ritual and incorrectly incorporates it into non-Jewish worship) tallit, complete with a New-Testament quote on the atarah (the neckpiece). Would it still be OK to sell tzitzit to this customer? On the one hand, we're profiting from an arguably idolatrous practice, but, on the other, she's helping a (presumably) fellow Jew (albeit an apostate one) fulfill the mitzvah of wearing tzitzit. What Jewish values are at work here? And what should we do?
There are a number of interesting issues involved in this question. First, the question assumes that Christianity is idolatry. Is this true? The answer to this is "not necessarily." While there are many figures of authority (such as Maimonides) who held that Christianity, especially the belief in the trinity, is, if not outright idolatry then shituf, or the quasi-idolatrous belief in a partnership with God, or that there is more than one person in the Godhead. On the other hand, equally authoritative voices in the tradition held the opposite. In the thirteenth century, the great Provencal Sage Rabbi Menahem Ha'Meiri wrote that all who are bound by the boundaries of religion are not idolatrous. He definitely included Christianity within this definition (and probably also Islam which Maimonides also believed was not idolatrous). So on the concern of aiding and abetting an idolatrous practice (a problem for the tradition), your girlfriend is seemingly on safe ground.
A different concern (that you didn't raise) might be that the tallit would be used in an evangelizing context. That is, by wearing the tallit, the wearer might give the impression that s/he is an authentically observant Jew, and therefore in some way trick an observer into listening to what s/he has to say as if it were traditional Judaism. This is a serious concern referred to in the tradition by the Biblical verse: "Do not place a stumbling block before a blind person." (Leviticus 19:14) This is understood by the rabbis to refer to many types of activity that lead another astray. Giving a Messianic Jew the ability to present themselves as professing an authentic form of Judaism may just be placing a stumbling block before a blind person.
However, what if the situation is that the Messianic Jew in question is not interested in evangelizing or presenting himself as anything other than a Jew who sees the belief in Jesus as part of his Jewish practice (and I'm not sure how one would verify this). As a result of his belief he fulfills the commandments to the best of his ability, and in addition, declares his fidelity to Jesus as his Lord and Savior. Is there a fundamental problem for a Jew in believing that the messiah has already come and will come again? Again, most authorities would answer yes. However, in recent years the answer to this question has become a little more ambiguous as at least part of the Lubavitch or Chabad Hassidic sect (unquestionably a significant and authentic Jewish movement) has claimed (based on esoteric kabbalistic or mystical texts) that the last Rebbe, who is dead, is the messiah and may in fact return. Almost no one (there are a few dissenters such as the philosopher David Berger) would refuse to sell tzitzit to a Lubavitch Hassid because of his belief in the messiahship of the rebbe OBM.
So there you have it. If your potential customer is a non-evangelizing, honestly believing Messianic Jew and you don't think it a problem to believe that the messiah died and will return, then by all means sell him or her the tzitzit. On the other hand, if your situation does not fit this paradigm, then perhaps you should return the tallit bereft of tzitzit.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Is there anything we can (or should) do to combat the stereotypes and frequent misinformation about Jews in television and movies? Or does drawing even more attention to it just make it even worse?
It is always important to correct misinformation and combat stereotypes. While some portrayals of Jews or Judaism stem from malicious intent, most are the result of ignorance which can be corrected by education and through correct information. The various Jewish defense organizations have done an enormous service over the years in flagging images of Jews in popular culture which cross the line of acceptability.
One of the best ways of defending against stereotypical portrayals of Jews and the spread of misinformation about Judaism in popular culture is through creating alliances with other minority groups that suffer from similar problematic portrayals. Over the years, sensitivity to all types of racism and sexism has shown itself an important weapon in the Jewish community’s arsenal of weapons with which to combat unacceptable portrayals of Jews and Judaism.
At the same time, I fear that the second part of the question reveals an anxiety about antisemitism which is unfounded. Thankfully, the Jewish community is in an enviable position in the United States. The number of antisemitic incidents is at a historic low compared to even a couple of decades ago. This does not mean that we should not respond to antisemitism (or any other form of racism) when it rears its ugly head. It does mean that we should not be over-vigilant, seeing enemies everywhere. Jean-Paul Sartre was totally wrong when he claimed that the antisemite creates Jewish identity. There is far more to Judaism than being vigilant against and fighting antisemitism. Shabbat, Torah, prayer, family, justice. These and others are the practices and values which have given Judaism the powerful substance which has given the Jewish people spiritual sustenance for millennia.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Do you think it’s important to give the Haredi fanatics a different name and not call them “Haredim” or “ultra-Orthodox?” Those names imply they are extra observant and pious, which clearly they are not. Wouldn’t this also help differentiate between the fanatics and more moderate Haredim?
Well, one person’s fanatic is another person’s heretic. It seems to me that the worst possible response to the current wave of publicized attacks on women and etc. is to start an official name calling policy. (Though, to be fair, there is a group of Haredim who call themselves “sikrikon” which denoted fanatics in the second Temple area and is etymologically derived from sicarii which means assassin.) The current campaign against the disappearance of women from public spaces in Jerusalem and its suburbs is a good thing, and there is no excuse for spitting at and intimidating young girls a they go to school.
However, before designating official nomenclature of derogation it would behoove us all to look through a wider lens and ask ourselves why we are focusing our ire at the Haredim. Are the Haredim the only community that denies women equal roles in religious public spaces? Are the Haredim the only group that uses violence? Should we no longer call the settlers in the Palestinian territories (who regularly use violence against their Palestinian neighbors) “Zionists” and instead call them, perhaps, sicarii? Should we stop using the term Orthodox (which originally was deployed as a derogatory term) and instead substitute the term Religious Segregationists? Well, you see where this is going. I suggest we allow everybody to refer to themselves as they wish, and judge everyone based on their actions. As the gemara says: One who calls his fellow a name has no share in the world to come.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Beginning in the month of Elul we begin the process to think about our sins that we need to ask forgiveness. If we are granted forgiveness by Hashem on Rosh Hashana, is it only the “punishment” for the sin that is removed or is it also the sin itself that is removed from our past?
The point of the process of tshuvah or repentance is to change the way we behave in the future. This is, of course, grounded in our past. However, the goal is to act differently the next time we find ourselves in a similar situation. Maimonides, in his Laws of Tshuvah, writes that a complete repentance occurs when one finds oneself in the same exact situation in which one has sinned in the past, and one is perfectly able to sin and yet, one does not sin. This turning away from the sin and turning toward God, toward the path of righteousness is what tshuvah is all about.
In order to understand what changes as a result of the tshuvah we have to understand what sin is. This is a long and complicated topic since sinning itself is dependent on a range of theological prerequisites. Instead, as a direction or orientation, a kavanah for this period I would say the following. The worst part of sinning is that it causes one to feel distant from God. One therefore must do tshuvah which is remembering that no matter what you are a child of God. That is what you need to return to.
This, of course, is all in the case of your relationship with God. If you have wronged another person, you have to engage them in a process which will make them whole again, and make your relationship with them whole, before you can stand before and in relationship with God.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Is there anything we can learn from high-profile Jews caught in scandals? If you were going to reference Anthony Weiner (for example) in a weekly sermon, what would you say?
The real issue in the Anthony Weiner tempest in a Twitter is tzni’ut or modesty. The public obsession with scandal was fueled by an additional “uck” factor, but the issue at the heart of it was the decorum with which a public figure should act—or the decorum which is to be expected of any figure in the public space, the reshut harabaim.
The issue of tzni’ut/modesty has gotten a bad rap over the years since those who are focussed on enforcing models of modest behavior have generally been caught in the loop of women’s body parts—knees, elbows, arms, etc. There is, of course, a place for this discussion. However, rather than seeing the discourse of tzni’ut be relegated to a topography of forbidden anatomy, it should be a broader conversation about how one presents oneself in public. A synonym for tzni’ut is humility as in Micah 6:8: “He has told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk humbly (hatzne’a lekhet) with your God.” Walking humbly is deeply connected with doing justice, since one who walks humbly is able to see beyond themselves. One who walks humbly can hear the suffering of others and respond to it. On who walks humbly is able to love goodness and to do justice.
It seems to me then that while Congressman Weiner definitely betrayed his mission of public service in that narcissism is one method of blocking out the cries of the needy, he is not alone. The eighty four million, five hundred thousand dollar salary paid this year to Viacom's Philippe Dauman, is far more immodest, in my eyes, than Weiner’s crotch shots.
During a time when the median household income is around fifty thousand dollars nationally, and when the unemployment rate is 9.1%, even the median pay for top executives—ten million, eight hundred thousand dollars—is brazen. It is, to my mind, a desecration of the public square that executives are being paid (“earning” is too gracious a word) this much money in a time when others are wondering where their next meal is coming from. One cannot be both outrageoulsy immodest and do justice and love goodness. That these executive payments is not a scandal worthy of prime-time news obsession is also an indicator of how far as a society we have strayed from walking humbly with our God.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Are any of the considerations of granting a Kashrut certificate things like humanitarian treatment of the animals prior to slaughter? Good treatment of workers in the factory? Etc? How can you have kosher goose liver pate, for example? Isn't that an internal contradiction?
To this day there has not been an institutional Kashrut certification which takes into consideration the humanitarian treatment of animals, the treatment of workers, etc. This is changing. Two welcome developments are entering the kosher food market. While not intended to replace any of the current certifications—which certify that ingredients and processes meet the rigorous standards of Jewish law to be considered “kosher—the “Magen Tzedek” of the Conservative movement and the “Tav Hayosher” of the organization Uri L’Tzedek are moving things forward. According to its website, the Magen Tzedek “will be awarded to kosher food products that meet or exceed the highest levels of ethical awareness in the areas of worker treatment, animal treatment and environmental responsibility.”
For years it has been the practice of the Kosher certification industry that issues of economic justice and animal cruelty are not their concern. However, this wall of separation has been pierced in the past when, for example, the raising of calves for veal was forbidden by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein because of tza’ar ba’alei chayyim, the infliction of undue pain on animals (Igrot Moshe, Even Haezer, Part 4, Benei Berak, 1985, end of no. 92, pp. 164- 165). The purchasing of veal and its consumption would then be forbidden as this would fall under the category of abetting the actions of sinners (Mishnah Gittin 5:9). The Magen Tzedek would apply this standard across the board to products which already have simple kashrut certification. Under this certification, an animal that was cruelly force-fed or a food which was produced in a factory in which the workers were not fairly compensated would not meet the standards to receive the Magen Tzedek.
The Tav Hayosher is awarded to restaurants and not manufacturers. The Tav is only given to establishments which respect their workers’ right to fair pay, right to fair time [i.e. a forty hour week and time and a half and the like] and right to a safe work environment.
Both of these certifications would break through the conceptual wall which, for some reason, separates the demand for kosher food from the demand for just food. Much as Isaiah (chapter 58) presents the demand for justice as a prerequisite to the observance of the sacrificial rites or even the Shabbat, so too do these ethical kashrut certifications demand that an employer be as stringent in the laws of Choshen Mishpat (the economic laws in the Shulchan Arukh) as in the laws of Yoreh Deah (the kashrut laws in the Shulchan Arukh). It is told of one the great Rabbis of the mussar movement, Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, that one year he could not be present at the baking of the matzot for Pesach. He sent some of his trusted students in his stead. They asked him: “What stringencies of Jewish law should we demand?” He replied: “The woman who does the baking is a widow. Make sure she is paid on time.” We can demand no less.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: If a child is born to a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father, how is s/he named? Is it still ben (or bat) biodad's English name? Or..?
When things were simpler there were simpler answers. A child who is born to a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father is without doubt Jewish (Yevamot 45b). Judaism is transmitted through the mother. Yet the child is considered as one who has no father (Yevamot 98a). Rabbi Moses Isserles says therefore that the son of a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father is called to the Torah as “…son of Abraham” and not by his father’s name. (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayyim 139:3) There are some who say that there is no obligation to respect one’s non-Jewish father (or mother in the case of a convert).
However, this cannot truly be the case. There is another principle that is operative in Talmud and Jewish law: It cannot be the case that halakhah is more lax than general ethical principles (or more literally it cannot be the case that Jewish law permits something that non-Jews are forbidden to do). Further, in regards to respecting one’s parents, the Talmud (Kiddushin 31a) lauds the behavior of one Dama ben Netina, a non-Jew as exemplary. If we derive the extent to which we should respect our parents from the behavior of a non-Jew, are we not to be obligated in respecting a non-Jewish parent?
The naming of a child is very important. The name given to a child is the one that s/he will use to be called to the Torah and the name that will be written on his or her ketubah (and God forbid, the get). The naming signifies the tradition that the child carries forward. Here is where the rub is.
I would say that in a situation where the father is not actively part of another faith tradition, there is no problem naming the child as the son of his/her mother and father. This is especially so if to not do so would shame the father. If the father is an active believer of another religion then the child should be called son of the mother (and perhaps of Abraham).
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: My teenage son’s teacher (a young rabbi) has a Facebook account, where he jokes around with students, friends, and colleagues. He is a personable guy and has never posted anything truly inappropriate, but I still feel this level of familiarity and ‘jocularity’ with a teacher erodes boundaries. Am I simply being Old School? Or is there something strange about it?
The respect that a teacher of Torah has to have for himself and for his students is a topic that has been discussed for as long as there have been teachers of Torah. The midrash relates that Joshua was chosen for leadership over Moshe’s own sons because Joshua attended on Moshe in the study hall.
The tension between seriousness and familiarity is a difficult path which is commented upon in the sources. The Talmud relates that Rabbah, the great Babylonian Sage would begin his classes with a joke, the attending rabbis would laugh, and then they would sit in awe and fear as he taught the lesson. Maimonides writes that a Sage who walks outside with even a stain on his coat has committed a grievous sin. He is also very adamant about the respect that a student has to show a teacher. At the same time, Maimonides writes that: “Just as students are obligated in the respect of their teacher, so too must a teacher respect his students, and bring them close to him. …A person must be very careful with his students and love them for they are the children who bring joy in this world and the next.” (Mishneh Torah, Talmud Torah 5:10).
In the twentieth century, one of the great Hassidic masters who was killed in the Shoah, Rav Kalonymous Kalmish Szapira, wrote a book whose object was to model for teachers how to behave towards their children. One of the arguments that Rav Szapira made was that if God could bring Godself down to the level of humans in order to teach them Torah at Sinai, does it not behoove a mortal teacher to bring him or herself to the level of their students in order to teach them?
If your son’s teacher’s intent is to open a path for his/her students so that they might find their way into Torah, the teacher is standing on solid ground.
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.
