Archive

Archive for the ‘Jewish customs’ Category

Does Halachah Permit Annulments for Marriage?

July 19th, 2009 Rabbi Samuel No comments

The principle of annulment for failed marriages has been used throughout Jewish history since the days of Late Antiquity.

In one Responsa of the Rashbam, he writes:

The correct rationale for all Talmudic statements that “the Rabbis annul this marriage” is that the court has the authority to expropriate the money used to effect the marriage, since the law recognizes the principle of hefker bet din hefker (i.e., the court has the right to declare privately-owned money or property ownerless). This being so, the money does not belong to him [the groom]—and thus he did not marry her with his money, and she is not married at all.

If so, we may expand this principle to cover a communal enactment, since the community may expropriate the property of any of its members, and all courts in every generation have the power to expropriate private property because “Jephthah in his generation is equal to Samuel in his generation.” …

Consequently, a community that adopts an enactment to the effect that any marriage not having the consent of the communal leaders is invalid has thereby taken the property away from the man and transferred it to the woman on condition that the man shall have no right to it. Since it did not belong to him, he gave her nothing of his own; what she obtained from him was ownerless property that had been taken away from him. She is [therefore] not married at all.

The community may do this as a protective measure to prevent an unworthy man from coming forward to entice a girl from a distinguished family and marry her in secret. If it is an earlier enactment [before the man moved into the town], then everyone implicitly consented to it, and the matter is even simpler.

(Cited from Jewish Law : History, Sources, Principles = Ha-mishpat ha-Ivri, p. 840.)

Unfortunately, the Orthodox and Haredi communities refuse to utilize such a measure because it involves a biblical issur. However, the loophole exists and this issue needs to be reappraised. Rav Moshe Feinstein utilized numerous Halachic arguments to annul marriages that occurred on a variety of different issues, e.g., the failure to disclose vital personal history, and so on. It is obvious that under normal circumstances a get would be required, but the Halacha sanctions a more extraordinary approach-when the situation calls for it, i.e., when the woman is subject to the threat of extortion from an estranged husband. Ultimately, today’s modern leaders will have to eventually answer God for their stubbornness and stupidity in World of Eternity. Such rabbinic corruption and anarchy must be confronted.

Grieving for a non-Jewish spouse or parent

April 11th, 2009 Rabbi Samuel No comments

An interesting but poignant incident took place last week on one of my favorite websites where the participants were discussing the new Orthodox Siddur (prayer book) that the Chief Rabbi of Britain recently wrote. The participants made comparisons to the Artscroll prayer book and the discussions suddenly took an unexpected turn—one that was surprising and tragic.

One of the forum’s participants named Mordechai wrote the following message about a conversation he had with a well-known Chabad rabbi in Florida.

My soul-mate and dear wife of more than thirty years passed away last Thursday after a brutal eight year fight with cancer. This has been devastating.

I approached a Chabad Rabbi just a few hours ago with the following question: “What Jewish prayers do you recommend for my wife; she was not Jewish.” To which he replied: “There are no Jewish prayers for her. Don’t do it again!”

These words sliced through me like a finely honed Samurai Sword. Momentarily a vision of a dead rabbi appeared before me. But with restraint, I said: “Rabbi thank you for your thoughts and have a good Pesach and left.”

So it goes. Well is it so then that our grand religion has no prayers for the non-Jewish deceased spouse?

As I read this heart rendering message, I thought about Martin Buber’s incredible little book entitled, “Meetings,” a book where Buber tells tales about serendipitous conversations with ordinary people that proved to be spiritual messages from God. According to Buber’s concept of the “I and Thou,” God is always triangulated in every human relationship. How we relate to the Other person we unexpectedly meet ultimately says something about our relationship with God. Although the topic of the original thread was an important and fascinating, I felt a voice inside me commanding me to offer words of consolation that might possibly soothe a grieving soul who was crying out for help. Technology has a great potential for holiness, provided it is used in a constructive and compassionate way. Mordechai’s experience is visceral reminder that one cannot ignore the pain of the Other, and conduct business as usual. After he thanked me for my words of condolence, I wrote back: Read more…

What is the origin of the term “kosher”? What does it take to make an animal “kosher”?

March 31st, 2009 Rabbi Samuel No comments


It may seem strange to the reader, but the term “kosher” only appears twice in the entire Bible (and in the only place where it appears, it does not pertain to food!! Originally, “kasher” meant “to be right and proper” (as in Esther 8:5), or “to prosper” (cf. Ecc. 11:6). As a noun, it connotes, “skill,” or “success” (Ecc. 2:21; 4:4), or “advantage.” The term originally came to designate proper and fit food only during the rabbinic era that is in accordance to the rules of ritual purity. Many of the basic laws of permitted and forbidden animals can be found in the Book of Leviticus (11:1–23, 29ff.) and in the Book of Deuteronomy (14:3–21). One of the best known restrictions is the law forbidding the cooking a calf in its mother’s milk (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21). Jewish thinkers beginning with Philo of Alexandria (ca. 1st century) suggest that the reason is so that we will learn to respect the importance of motherhood. God intended for the milk to enhance the life of the infant animal—and not so that we may use it as a condiment for dinner!

Two characteristics are necessary for an animal to be considered “kosher” for consumption: Kosher animals must be cloven-hooves and chew their cud. By this definition, not only were the ox, sheep, and goat permitted, but so are the seven kinds of venison (Deut. 14:5). Animals failing to fulfill these criteria were considered unfit as food. With respect to fish, only those with both fins and scales might be eaten. Among the insects, only certain types of locusts may be eaten. Curiously, bee honey is the only insect product that is permitted for people to eat. It is vital to remember that in addition to the kosher types of animals, the blood of these creatures must never be consumed. Jewish Law requires that the blood of a kosher animal always be drained; this practice was followed by salting the meat to remove any residual blood.

Additionally, the sciatic nerve and its adjoining blood vessels may not be eaten. Due to the expense and time in removing this nerve, butchers outside of Israel do not bother with the hind-quarters and sell it to non-kosher butchers. There certain kind of fat known as chelev, which surrounds the vital organs and the liver, and may not be eaten. Kosher butchers remove this. In the days of the Temple, such fat was dedicated to the altar for God. In the Talmud, there was some disagreement whether chicken should be considered “meat” or like fish. In practice, pious Jews treat chicken like meat despite the fact that one cannot cook a chicken in its mother’s milk!

People often wonder why swine is forbidden. Some scholars like Maimonides, believed it was because of its filthy habits. During medieval era in Europe, pigs were used to clean up human waste products, which they relished as food. The first century Jewish Greek philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, argued that pork is the most tasty and most delicious of all meats. Moses made it forbidden so that his descendants might learn self-control. Of course, one might wonder: How did Philo really know that pork is “the most delicious of meats”? Enquiring minds really want to know!

Kosher animals have to be slaughtered in a certain prescribed way before they can be eaten. The Torah stresses that one may not eat an animal that died because of natural causes (Deut. 12:21), nor may one consume an animal that was attacked and (or) killed by a predator. Such animals were considered to be treifah “torn”, and are considered unfit for human consumption because of the possibility of disease.

The ritual slaughterer is called the Shochet. The method of slaughter involves using an extremely sharp razor-edged blade. The Shochet makes a quick, deep stroke across the throat with a perfectly sharp blade with no nicks or unevenness. This method is relatively painless, and causes unconsciousness within two seconds if the stroke is properly performed. Some kosher houses shackle cows and oxen, and this method is gradually disappearing from Kosher slaughter houses because it (1) is cruel to animals (2) dangling from the shackles inevitably causes fractures and broken limbs, which always render the animal unkosher. The expression “Glatt Kosher” refers to the condition of the animals’ lungs as being free from any kind of adhesion that may stem from disease or a wound. In popular nomenclature, “Glatt Kosher” usually connotes the highest kind of Kashrut.

Rabbi Dr. Michael Leo Samuel

What does “rabbi” mean and when was the title first introduced?

March 27th, 2009 Rabbi Samuel No comments

What does “rabbi” mean, and when was the title “rabbi” first introduced?

This question is much more complex than most people realize. However, antecedents to the term רַב (rab) has some basis the Tanakh, where it denotes “great,” or chief (2 Kgs 18:17; Isa 36:2). Elsewhere the expression rab māg means “chief of princes” (Jer 39:3, 13), while rab tabbāım, is “captain of the guard” (2 Kgs 25:8, etc.). By the time of the 1st century, the title of “rabbi” probably derived from the term, “Raboni,” meaning, “My Master” and was roughly the equivalent of saying “Sir,” or “My Lord”-especially if one happens to be wealthy or politically powerful!

Read more…

Was Jesus actually married?

March 26th, 2009 Rabbi Samuel No comments

Question: After reading the Da Vinci Codes, I began to wonder: Was Jesus actually married? Was a rabbi of that era supposed to be married?

Answer: To begin with, there was no official office of the rabbinate in the first century; generally speaking the epithet “rabbi” was an honorific title. Oftentimes, a wise person was called a “Chacham” (a Sage), or “Abba” since a spiritual teacher was considered to be like one who had given birth to a child or a disciple.

Jews in the first century generally got married at a fairly young age so that they could fulfill the precept of raising a family. One rabbinic aphorism attributed to Ben Azzai (ca. 2nd century) reads: “Whosoever abstains from the precept of procreation is considered as if he shed blood” (T.B. Yebamoth 63b). Would one expect an aspiring leader to be married? Not all the rabbis agree on this issue.

Despite Ben Azzai’s endorsement of marriage, Ben Azzai remained a bachelor for all of his life, although some rabbinic traditions claim that he was married for a short period of time and got divorced. When accused of not practicing what he preached, he answered: “What shall I do if my soul yearns for Torah? The world can be performed by others” (Ibid.). After Ben Azzai died, people used to say, “With the passing of Ben Azzai, diligent scholars passed from the earth” (Sot. 9:15). His intellectual pursuits were intensely passionate; he never wanted to be distracted from his Torah studies. Perhaps Jesus had a similar attitude; and for that reason, he never married. On the other hand, perhaps he did get married; in all likelihood we will probably never know for sure. This question is of little importance to Jews per se, but is obviously important to Christians who have long rejected the idea of marriage as a biblical ideal for all of its spiritual leaders, which would explain why celibacy is so important in the Catholic faith.

Why does the Bible tolerate slavery?

March 25th, 2009 Rabbi Samuel No comments
Q. I honestly would like to believe that the Bible is the untainted Word of God, but there are several passages that very clearly go against any sane standard of human decency. Two quick examples are Numbers 31, and the commandment that a Canaanite slave must be kept forever. I don’t understand how my God could demand such grotesque acts in the former tale, and condone eternal slavery in the latter bit. Since you are far more learned than I am, I thought you would be able to offer explanations.

A. I enjoyed your question. I wish everyone read the Torah with such a critical eye.

By the way the verse speaking of the Canaanite slave being kept forever is not from Numbers 31 but from Leviticus 25:46. Even there, nothing prevent a slave from having a family member purchase his freedom, or if he is determined to be free, he can choose to run away from his master for the Torah grants the slave instant freedom — even if he is a Canaanite slave!! “You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has taken refuge from him with you. Let him live with you wherever he chooses, in any one of your communities that pleases him. Do not molest him” (Deut. 23:16-17). Read more…

Significance of the Number Four

March 25th, 2009 Rabbi Samuel No comments

Question: The Passover Hagadah speaks of four cups of wine, four sons, the four questions, and so on. What is the number four so significant in the Passover Seder? I would also like to know about the specific origin of the famous Four Questions during Seder.

Answer: Good question. In the interest of time, let me be succinct. The idea of “four questions,” the “four types of children” draws heavily on the symbolism of the number four. The number four represents a totality e.g., world’s four cardinal directions, the cosmic ordering of time as seen in the four seasons, the four elements, and the four temperaments of classical thought. Basically, the number four conveys how reality is experienced in this world.

This is certainly evident with respect to the “Four types of Children” which covers every kind of conceivable child. The wise, the contrarian, the simple, and the silent serves as a spiritual diagnostic for the healthiness of the traditional Jewish family. Our Sages used the number four to stress the importance of having each child present at the Seder.

Read more…

The Inconspicuous Messiah

March 24th, 2009 Rabbi Samuel No comments
As Napoleon marched triumphantly through Europe, the Jews of the ghetto felt joyous by his arrival. Was Napoleon really the Messiah? Many of our ancestors thought so; but again, that was before Napoleon got defeated at the Battle of Waterloo. And then there was Franklin Delano Roosevelt better known to my parent’s generation as “FDR.” Many Jews living back in the gloomy days of WWII believed that FDR might have been the Messiah, but that was before we learned that FDR decided not to bomb Hitler’s crematoria.

To our surprise, the Messiah, it turns out, didn’t dress like an emperor, nor did he appear as a president. In Jewish tradition, the reality of deliverance comes disguised. At the Passover Seder, Jews express hope that the following year will be redemptive in character. By opening the door for Elijah, we keep the flame of hope alive that redemption is near at hand. Yet, for all the fanfare about the Messiah, the redeemer of Israel’s birth is uneventful and anonymous. Yet, curiously, he walks hidden among us.

Read more…

The Best Question of the Passover Seder

March 15th, 2009 Rabbi Samuel No comments
Children have an unusual ability when it comes to confronting our spiritual hypocrisy as parents and as adults; very often they get to the essence of the problem as they perceive things. Frequently, as parents we often fail to hear the questions our young people ask of us; often we overreact whenever we feel that our beliefs and values are being questioned or attacked.

Rather than listening with an inner ear, as parents, we often react with harshness and anger. Sometimes we wish our children were more respectful and compliant, or at least, “mind their place” at the Seder table and not misbehave or draw undue attention to themselves. As any Woody Allen fan certainly knows, passionate family discussions have always been a part of Jewish life since ancient times. Unanimity has never been the goal of any kind of discussion wherever you have two or more Jews together engaged in dialogue. Passover is no exception to this rule.

During Passover, this thought finds expression in the question of the “Rasha ” (better known to most of us as the “Wicked Child”). Without his presence and participation, the entire Seder would be a dull experience. Here is a literal translation of the controversial passage we read in the Passover Hagadah:

The wicked child, what does that he say? “What is this service to you?” Note what the Torah says, “To you,” but not to him. Because he has excluded himself from the community, he has denied a basic teaching of the faith. Therefore you shall smack his teeth and tell him, It is because of this that God wrought for me in my going out of Egypt (Exod. 13:8) “For me,” but not him. Had he been there, he would not have been redeemed.

The above translation poses two obvious problems:

(1) As a parent, I have often wondered how anyone could call their child “Wicked”? The glaring meaning of “Rasha” is arguably offensive. Obviously, some modern translations prefer to sugarcoat their translation by giving the “Rasha” a less offensive epithet, e.g., “deviant,” or “troublesome.” I am unsure whether the “Deviant Son” is much of an improvement over the “Wicked Son” for both translations are clearly judgmental and pejorative. If we are to choose a less offensive title, let us describe him or her as a “Wayward Child,” or perhaps more accurately a “Rebellious Child.” At any rate, our Rasha is a person who is a young person who stands perilously close to the edge of his/her Judaism; without a proper pedagogical response, the “Rasha” may grow up to disaffiliate as a Jew.

Read more…

Banning Women from Funerals?

March 12th, 2009 Rabbi Samuel No comments

Q. I read recently in the Jerusalem Post about a funeral that took place in the Yavneh cemetery, where the women were prohibited from walking near the graves, and one of the reasons given was because it “damages their wombs.” Another Orthodox woman said, “Due to the high rate of deaths of young people in Yavneh, the community undertook a vow not to approach the grave during a burial - and that would be the tikkun (healing) of Yavneh.”

A woman defending the custom, explained:

We implored the woman from the cemetery. We argued with her and amongst ourselves. In the meantime, some men were already returning from the burial. As they passed near us, they said we could approach the grave now since the burial had been completed. Yet the cemetery woman still refused and said, “It is not good for the departed. Don’t you understand? You are sinning against the dead. You are harming his soul” and with that she silenced us. She overwhelmed us. The father of my departed cousin is religious and some of the women said he might want us to obey these shocking orders. We did not want to endanger him or his son in any way in the world to come. So we stopped trying …) [Jerusalem Post, March 12, 2009]

What is the reason for this antiquated custom? Why is there an association between a woman’s menstruation and death? Can a woman serve as a pallbearer?

A. Great questions!

The Talmud in BT Sanhedrin 20a discusses funeral etiquette:

“Our Rabbis taught: Wherever it is customary for women to follow the bier, they may do so; to precede it, they may do so likewise. R. Judah said: Women must always precede the bier, for we find that David followed the coffin of Abner, as it is written, “And King David followed the bier” (2 Sam. 3:31). They the Rabbis said to him: ‘That was only to appease the people, and they were indeed appeased, for David went to and fro, from the men to the women and back from the women to the men, as it is written, So all the people and all Israel understood that day that it was not of the king to slay Abner’ ( 2 Sam. 3:37).

Ba’ale Tosfot cites two views from the Jerusalem Talmud regarding this Talmudic passage: one approach suggests the reason why women should not lead a funeral procession, because it was Eve, who introduced death to the world.[1] However, others contend that because of modesty, it became customary for men to lead the procession (which is contrary to the view expressed by R. Judah cited above).

There is a big difference whether the custom of women following the bier is because of modesty or whether it is attributed to Eve’s sin.

Now, the Zohar (ca. 12th century) complicates the discussion and adds an entirely new wrinkle to the above Talmudic discussion.

R. Simeon further said: ‘I swear to you that the majority of people do not die before their time, but only those who know not how to take heed to themselves. For at the time when a dead body is taken from the house to the place of burial the Angel of Death haunts the abodes of the women. Why of the women? Because that has been his habit since the time that he seduced Eve, through whom he brought death upon the world. Hence, when he takes a man’s life, and the males are accompanying the dead body, he mingles himself on the way among the women, and he has then the power to take the life of the sons of men. He looks on the way at the faces of those who come within his sight, from the time they carry the dead body out from his house to the place of burial until they return to their homes. It is on their account that he brings about the untimely death of many people. Regarding this it is written: “But there is that is swept away without justice” (Prov. 13:23). For he, the Angel of Death, ascends and brings accusations and recounts man’s sins before the Holy One, blessed be He, so that the man is brought to judgment for those sins, and is removed from the world before his time.

The Zohar now offers its own view of proper funeral etiquette:

What is the remedy against this? When the dead body is carried to the place of burial, a man should turn his face in another direction, and leave the women behind him. Should the latter pass in front he should turn round so as not to face them. Similarly, when they return from the place of burial he should not return by the way where the women are standing, and he should not look at them at all, but should turn a different way. It is because the sons of men do not know of this, and do not observe this, that the majority of people are brought up for judgment and are taken away before their time..[2]

The Zohar’s position ought to be fairly clear: all women must atone for Eve’s sin. The connection between menstruation and death has long been a part of Western religion, for among the punishments Eve receives in Genesis 3, according to rabbinic folklore, was the beginning of her menstrual cycle—all this is subsumed under the penalty “I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing” (Gen. 3:16) as noted by Seforno and Malbim in their biblical commentaries. Women are thus viewed in early rabbinic tradition as being responsible for the presence of death in the world, and the menstrual cycle is a collective punishment all women must bear for a substantial part of their lives.

Kabbalists sometimes cite another verse in Scriptures that associates women with death, “Her feet go down to death; her steps lead straight to the grave” (Proverbs 5:11)-as an allusion to Eve! For this reason, women are forbidden to serve as pallbearers among the Orthodox. Non-Orthodox brands of Judaism allow women to serve in this capacity.

R. Joseph Karo, author of the Shulchan Aruch rules that women should not participate in the procession to the grave, lest they bring harm to the world.[3] Rabbinical scholars like the Kabbalist R. Isaac Luria[4], as well as the Vilna Gaon, urge women not to even enter a cemetery until they have gone to the mikveh (a ritual bath for purification).[5] According to Luria, the law applies no less to men who had sexual relations or a seminal emission as well, for they too, must immerse themselves in the mikveh since the demonic forces of evil are believed to cling to an individual who has not immersed.

The Kabbalah influences the Jewish legal system known as “Halachah” more than most people realize. Halachic authorities are divided whether this applies when the woman is counting her “seven clean days” after her menstrual bleeding has ceased. As a side note, some rabbis believe that a woman should not go to a synagogue while she is bleeding, but most authorities think it is permitted during her seven clean days.

As mentioned above, nowhere in the Talmud is there any mention at all of this custom. Jewish mysticism modifies the Christian doctrine of Original Sin, and redirects the blame-to the women [men have been blaming women for the ills of the world since ancient times], who are believed to represent the incarnation of Eve. These mystics influenced the tradition, and that would explain why the incident in Yavneh created a ruckus. Of course, this law, like many others, is rooted in classical misogyny. To our regret, sexism retains an honored place in the Zohar and for those who admire the study of the Kabbalah, it is imperative we realize that its authors had feet of clay, and were indeed men of their age. The Zohar is far from being an inerrant work of religious literature.

In the spirit of speculation, I would add that customs, such as this one, may have a basis in something tragic that occurred in a Jewish community long ago. Perhaps a pregnant woman attended a funeral one day, and she miscarried while she was standing in front of a grave. The horror of such an awful experience might have left the community in a state of trauma, and as Kabbalists and rabbis tried to find a connection between the events (the funeral and the miscarriage).[6]

Lastly, the term “kever” (that typically means “grave”), but may also signify uterus and womb.[7] This could partially explain basis for the Zohar and subsequent Lurianic custom about women not entering a cemetery in a funeral procession.


[1] Tosfot, s.v. Nashim - Sanhedrin 20a.

[2] II Zohar 196a-b.

[3] YD 359:1-2.

[4] Cited in the Magane Avraham O.H. 559, s.k. 19.

[5] Cited in the Pitechei Teshuvah Y.D. 119 , s.k. 119.

[6] Of course the idea that women are responsible for the evil and death of the world derives from texts that are even more ancient than the Talmud or Midrash, e.g., Sirach 15:24,25:24; Life of Adam and Eve 44:2; Apocalypse of Moses 14;2. Long before the Zohar or Kabbalah was a twinkle in some rabbi’s eye, generations of people attributed the evils and problems of the world to women; subsequent rabbinical tradition only confirmed a belief that amounts to an early Judaic version of Original Sin that eventually influenced Christianity.

[7] For an illustration of this concept, the Talmud in tractate Nidah 21a raises the question whether it is possible for the uterus to open without bleeding, see also Even Shoshan Hebrew Dictionary s.v. “kever.”