Ask the Rabbi
If you have any questions about Judaism at all, please direct it right here and Rabbi Spivak himself will answer it. The most interesting questions will be posted weekly... right here!
Q1: Why
do the righteous suffer together with the wicked? Why isn't each person judged
on their own merit? Examples: holocaust, pogroms, inquisitions, natural
disasters
A:
The question you ask was
posed by none other than Moses. In Hebrew it is known as "tzadik v'ra
lo" - the issue of the righteous individual who suffers. Sages have
struggled with this question for centuries. There are those who say that it is
presumptuous to attempt to answer such a question; the human mind, some say, is
incapable of a satisfactory answer. Then there are those who say the former
answer is presumptuous, that saying such a thing presumes that one
has scanned all the extant literature on the subject and can confidently state
that an answer does not exist for man. I am from the school of those who believe
that one of man's purposes is to struggle to understand the Nature of God.
Therefore, I
cannot walk away from the question without attempting some answers.
In the
case of the Jewish People, their survival in the face of centuries of
persecution is nothing short of miraculous. It is encapsulated in the "chad
gadyo", the Passover Hagadah song which allegorically depicts the rise of
huge nations that sought to destroy the Jewish People, but, instead, were
themselves destroyed, while the "gadyo", the little goat of a Jewish
Nation survived its persecutors. The list of nations who rose and fell while
oppressing Jews is, indeed, impressive, among them: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon,
Rome, and, in modern times, Czarist Russia and Nazi Germany. The historian
Arnold Toynbee, who seems to have a formula for the rise and fall of nations,
has reduced the Jews to a footnote and he refers to the Jews as "the fossil
of civilization," evidently due to the fact that their
survival does not fit neatly into his equation. This Jewish survival is due to
nothing less than God causing His Face to shine upon His people.
Now,
however, that we have hopefully established that Jewish survival defies all
historical analysis save for the explanation of Divine Intervention, we must
come to the corollary, the result of the absence of that Divine Presence - the
aforementioned "hester panim."
The
next logical question is: "What about the innocent men, women, and children
who did not turn their backs on God - the innocent babies who were tossed into
the fires - why should they have perished along with the sinners?" For the
answer to this, one must rise above the natural inclinations of a
flesh-and-blood creature in order to see that were it not for the Hand of
God, these babies would never have been born in the first place - their
potential great-grandparents would have ordinarily been wiped out in a pogrom
through the natural courses of history long before them. Knowing this, knowing
that God is the Giver of Life to a human being who has no right to that life
other than being the beneficiary of the Almighty's kindness, helps one to begin
to fathom the depths of the nature of human existence.
With this in mind, we can
ponder what seems to be a very troubling saying of the Sages: "The
Destroyer, having been given permission to inflict damage, no longer
distinguishes between the righteous and the wicked." This is the
"Blank Check" granted to The Evil Side in times of "hester panim".
Granted,
you say, that humankind is the beneficiary of the gift of life, but why would
the Almighty allow such a blank check to the Forces of Evil? The answer to this lies in the
kabbalistic explanation of why man exists in the first place. God is the Essence
of Good, say the kabbalists. God initially was everything; there was nothing
outside of God. This presented a contradiction: if it was the nature of God to
bestow Good, but there was nothing outside of God upon which to bestow that
Good, how could God fulfill His Nature? The mystics explain, that for this
reason, God "withdrew," ("tzimtzum") so that there would be
a world outside of Him upon which to bestow His Kindness.
God,
having "withdrawn", then created "vessels" which He filled with Himself.
These vessels, or Souls, if you will, were therefore the beneficiaries of God's
Goodness, owing the enjoyment of their very existence to His Benevolence. But,
these souls, possessing a bit of God within them, therefore wanted to
reciprocate, and bestow goodness upon their Creator. But what can one give
God?
There is only one thing, reasoned these souls, and that was loyalty.
In
order to prove that loyalty, the souls would have to descend into the Lower
World (that's us) cloaked in the flesh-and-blood of man, and be tempted by evil.
Should a soul succeed in avoiding evil it would be rewarded with returning to
the Upper World to bask in the Glory of the Divine Presence. If a soul succumbed
to evil it would endure punishment. In order for this to be an honest test, man
would have to be given free will ("bechira") which meant that he would
have to bear the consequences of his actions. The implication being that
when a person of power acted in an evil way, the consequences of his evil deed
could not always be interfered with if the Lower World were to truly be a test
of "bechira"/freewill.. Otherwise, no one would take the choice of
good versus evil seriously, being that they did not have to bear the
consequences. The concentration camps of Auschwitz and Treblinka stand as an
indictment of man, not of God. Life on this earth is not a rose garden, it is
serious business, and man is given the free will to create an environment of
righteousness and love or an environment of evil and hatred with all its
consequences - including the death of innocents. As unfair as this may seem to
some, if one views true existence as that of the soul, with the life on earth as
merely a narrow bridge to a life dwelling in the Divine Presence, this answer
may suffice. If one's understanding of what constitutes life is strictly physical and material, it will not
be sufficient.
Q2:
My wife lost her Kesubah. Are there any ramifications?
A:
Yes. The Halacha is that a man and wife are not allowed to
live under the same roof if the Kesubah is lost. What you have
to do is get a form called a Kesubah D'Irchasay (A Lost Kesubah)
and ask a rabbi trained in Halacha to fill it out for you.
Q3:
I heard that one is not allowed to take a fellow Jew to a
civil court, only to a Beis Din, a rabbinical court. Is this
true?
A:
No. There are times when a rabbinical court will allow
someone to take his case against a fellow Jew to a civil court.
If the Beis Din issues three hazmanos (subpeonas) and the other
party ignores them, the Beis Din can issue a Ksav
Seruv, which
is a declaration that a party has refused to respond to its subpeonas. The Beis Din can then give the plaintiff permission
to take his case to a civil court.
Q4:
I am a Christian who has been following the Creation vs.
Evolution debate going on online (Neither I nor my church
believe in a literal account of Genesis 1 and 2) Anyway, I am
struck by how all the defenders of the literal account are
fundamentalist Christians. Is there a comparable position in the
spectrum of Jewish thought? I assume that the Reformed Jews
would accept the scientific findings and treat the creation
account allegorically, but what about the Conservative and
Orthodox end of the spectrum? Is there any consensus or even a
minority opinion that the world was literally created in six
days? Or is the general tendency to treat such stories
allegorically? I'm curious, because the entire debate seems to
be between fundamentalist Christians and rabid atheists, with
only an occasional voice of moderation showing up.
A:
We are all finite creatures - minute dots in the
Universe - trying to figure out the work of an Infinite Being -
The Creator. In spite of it being a tough job, here are some
Torah thoughts on your question. The medieval scholar and
kabbalist Nachmanides (The Ramban) held to a literal
interpretation as to the time of Creation - he believed that it
took place in six, twenty-four hour days. But his position is
not the only one. According to others, the Almighty created the
world in what He - and only He considered days - that is, as
stated in Psalms: "For a thousand years in Your Eyes is like
yesterday." That being the case, each day could have been
thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years.
Here's something else to think about. That which determines that
a day is twenty-four hours is the relationship between the Earth
and the Sun. If the Sun is not present, there is no reference
point with which to determine when the Earth has made a full
twenty-four hour revolution. Please note that the Sun was not
created until the fourth day; the light up to that time was not
from the sun but from another source and was therefore not bound
by the twenty-four hour system. The first three days then,
could have been millions of years. As to your question of
evolution, please note that the Talmud does not reject certain
aspects of Evolution. For instance, Hillel was asked why the
feet of the Africans were wider than those of other peoples. He
answered that since they lived in swampy lands, the "makom"
changed their feet to give them better traction. You may
translate "makom" as the environment, or, as others say, the
Almighty Himself. It really doesn't matter, since the Talmud,
the Jewish book of wisdom, in the final analysis, accepts the
idea that there occurred physical changes in the species in
order to better adapt to a particular environment. The
commentary by Yonatan Ben Uziel points out that Cain, the
son of Adam, was "lo dami leh," meaning a different kind of
creature than the rest of his family. We know from rabbinic
literature that Cain looked more animal-like than did they. There
were seven generations of Cain - hundreds of thousand of people -
whose unearthed remains could very well be what archaeologists
might have interpreted as a stage in the development of Homo
Sapiens - man. All the best to you.
Q5:
I would like to know your opinion regarding Kosher Cheese. As I
understand it, the big objection to most cheeses is that they
are made with rennet, whose origin is from beef. However, is it
not true that there is a halachic concept that if something of
animal origin is reverted to a chemical and even a dog wouldn't
eat it and does not recognize it as edible, then it is in fact
chemical, therefore, permitting so-called non-kosher cheeses. In
our family we have accepted this halachah. In fact, when I was a
youngster (now I'm 63), I do remember Orthodox rabbis themselves
permitting regular cheese. I am not certain, but the tendency
for more strict use of cheese might be at least in part
associated to the availability of Kosher cheese.
A:
You have touched on one of the most complex and controversial
issues in Halacha. I will discuss it this once, and that's it!
Even in the Talmud, when the subject was brought up to a rabbi,
we are told that after a certain amount of discussion, "hayseo
ledavar achayr," meaning he simply changed the subject.
You mentioned rennet which is a coagulant ("davar hamamid"). The
problem with rennet is not that it is made of beef, as you say,
but that it could come from a non-Kosher animal. Your point
about the condition of the beef is mentioned in Halacha in
relation to it being "Naaseh KoEytz," meaning hardened like
wood. Rav Chaim Ozer and others discuss this. Also, today,
although non-Kosher rennet is still occaisionaly used, it is my
understanding that the majority of rennet is microbial in
origin, and the major brands of rennet have hechsherim. Having
said that, would I eat cheese without a Hechsher? The answer is NO. There is still the issue of
Gvinas Akum, which I shall
translate here to mean that Halacha requires the manufacture of
Kosher cheese to be under Jewish auspices. Although Rav Moshe
Feinstein did, under certain circumstances, permit Chalav Akum
(milk) to be used because FDA guidelines negated the problem
that had caused it to be banned - and some would like to extend
that "heter" to cheese as well - I still would not permit the
consumption of cheese without a Hechsher, especially since there
is an easy availability of Kosher cheese on the market.
To summarize:
1. One should not eat cheese without a Hechsher.
2. Should anyone ask me anything further on this issue, I will
follow in the footsteps of the aforementioned Talmudic Sage and
change the subject.
Q6:
In a recent discussion with my father we disagreed on whether
Halachah allows for organ transplantation. My father took the
position that a body is to be buried whole. A friend indicated
that the 'drash' is that since a body (dead or alive) contains a
soul, when the Messiah arrives, the body's soul needs to be
available for reunion. When I studied bio-medical ethics I
recall an article arguing the following.
1) Modern medicine requires new law because it has changed
what we can do for the ill.
2) Organ transplants are a very new procedure.
3) Because this procedure is so new, older law is inappropriate
because it could not imagine or consider this possibility.
4) Often organ transplants 'save' a life.
5) Given that this is the case, then the question is whether not
donating organs can be justified.
6) There are few situation in which a Jew can avoid not
attempting to save a life.
7) So the question is whether donating an organ for use after
one's own death one of these situations that would prevent
attempting to save a life.
8) No. I can not find my source for this. Can you identify the source(s) and does the logic hold against the law? Thanks.
A:
Yours is a very complex question. Here is a brief discussion of
the issues. The question is: what is Halachic death, brain
death or cessation of cardiac activity? It is generally
necessary for an organ to be removed when the heart is still
beating. If the determination is cessation of cardiac activity, then removal of an organ while cardiac activity is still there
constitutes killing of the donor. If death is determined by
brain death, modern medicine can sustain a heart when brain
activity has ceased. Therefore, if one does not remove the
organ and give it to a recipient who would otherwise die without
it, is that considered causing the death of the potential
recipient? On the other hand, even if brain death is the
criterion, what of Nivul HaMet - desecration of a dead body by
removing parts of it? Does Pikuach Nefesh - the need to save
the life of the recipient - negate the prohibition of
desecrating the body of the donor? In modern Rabbinic
literature there is to be found a prohibition against heart
transplants in the responsa of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. This
decision was written before 1980 when the success of heart
transplants was very low. There is a rabbi who claims that
Rabbi Feinstein later reversed himself on the issue when the
success rate improved. I suggest, that for a list of source
material, you obtain the book "Medicine and Jewish Law - Volume 1"
edited by Fred Rosner, M.D. On page 162, Dr. Rosner states,
"Other Halachic problems in organ transplantation include the
question of desecrating the body of the dead donor, the
prohibition of deriving benefit from the dead, and the
postponement burial of the dead...The great majority of the
poskim permit organ transplants if the life of the recipient can
thereby be saved, the foregoing considerations are set aside for
the overriding consideration of saving a life"
Q7: I am attending a weekly Talmud class at the local university run
by the Hillel rabbi. We were studying chapter VII of Baba Mezi'a
(p. 83a). In the Mishnah, the concept of "local custom" (Minhag Hamedina) was used. We were all surprised that the Law, which is
usually so specific, would allow so much leeway. When is it
valid to use "local custom" to justify one's actions in Jewish
Law.
A: The Sages tell us "He who wishes to become
wise should involve himself in civil law." You have chosen your
area of study wisely. The concept of Minhag HaMedinah, the
authority of local custom, refers mainly to contractual
relationships between parties. In the case of the Gemara you are
learning, the responsibilities of laborer and employer to one
another are contingent upon local custom. The Mishna considers
the question of what time the employer may demand of his workers
to arrive or stay for work, but the question (in light of NAFTA)
might just as well be: May an American company with a plant in
Mexico demand of the workers that they work through the time
that they normally take a siesta? (if there is still such a
local custom). Probably, due to cultural differences, it would
be impossible for the halacha to prescribe uniform practices on
such local levels. The diamond district on New York's
forty-seventh street has its own minhag when it comes to closing
deals. When a pesrpective buyer and seller verbally agree on a
price and then shake hands with the words "mazel u'bracha,"
meaning good fortune and blessing, the deal is considered
finalized, even though the rest of the world would require a
signed contract for such a finalization. The minhag hasochrim -
the custom of the dealers - in effect, the forty-seventh street
minhag hamedinah, supercedes the halachic requirement of a shtar mechirah
- a written contract of sale. It is important to note
that the primacy of minhag hamedinah exists only in the world of
local contractual relationships, not in the other sections of
the Shulchan Aruch such as Yoreh Dayoh and Even Ho'Ezer which
deal with, among other things, laws of kashrut, and laws of
marriage.
Q8:
I am interested in understanding G-d's decision to ask Abraham
to slay his first born son Isaac. Why would G-d ask
Abraham to
do something that is clearly so painful to Abraham, let alone Isaac. I understand that it was a test, but why would G-d put
anyone through the anguish of killing their own child? To ask
it another way, if Abraham would have decided to not kill Isaac,
would it be a sign that Abraham loved G-d less? I think not.
In fact, G-d would arguably fully understand the choice, and
respect Abraham for not killing his son.
A:
Your answer is rooted in certain kabbalistic concepts. Man's
purpose on this earth is to prove his loyalty to G-d. G-d is
the Giver and Taker of life. He Who could have taken the life
of Isaac, asked Abraham to do it to prove his loyalty. Had
Isaac died, instead, of a heart attack, would you have had the
same complaint to G-d? In the end, Isaac did not die at all.
Keep
the questions coming, you just might
find yours
featured on this very page!
If you want further clarifications or comments on these or any other subject,
call us on the
Jewish Radio Network, we and our listeners would love to hear from
you.