|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rabbi Cantor Alison Wissot |
|
|
|
| Cantorial Soloist Mark Britowich |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You be the Rabbi
|
Three Real World Scenarios -
• You are meeting with a Bar Mitzvah Boy, he is the child of a mixed marriage, his mother is not Jewish. You begin talking about his speech and Judaism in his life. You ask him about his belief in God and he tells you he does believe in God and he also believes that Jesus is the messiah. What do you do?
• Couple comes to the Rabbi to get married, they ask you to perform the Jewish wedding ceremony but not sign the civil license because it would have negative tax implications for them. What do you do?
• An interfaith family is in the process of divorce. They belong to the temple. The child has been trained and scheduled to have a Bar Mitzvah. The Jewish father refuses to allow his son to have a Bar Mitzvah because he says he can’t afford it and thinks with all that is going on it would just be too much for him to handle right now. The non-Jewish mother is demanding a Bar Mitzvah for the boy saying he has been looking forward to it and she is willing to pay any fees or expenses involved. Until the divorce is finalized (after the bar mitzvah date) they are both members of the temple – what do you do?
The following are questions and answers from the Reform Rabbinic Responsa Committee on additional dilemmas.
Circumcision of Infants
QUESTION: During the last thirty or forty years most American children have been routinely circumcised in the hospital after birth. This was considered good preventive medicine and was recommended by most doctors. The medical profession has now changed its attitude on this matter. Some doctors no longer feel the operation is necessary and therefore do not routinely suggest it. It is clear that traditional Judaism demands circumcision for all males. What is the stand of Reform Judaism on this matter today? (L.O., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
ANSWER: The rite of circumcision is one of the most ancient practices of Judaism. This commandment was given to Abraham with the injunction that male children be circumcised on the eighth day (Gen. 17:11). The commandment is repeated later in the Torah (Lev. 12:3), and has remained throughout our history as one of the most important commandments. It already led to martyrdom in Maccabean times (I Macc. 1:48,60). The exact details of the circumcision itself have been provided in every Jewish code (Yad, Hil. Mila; Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 260ff; Gates of Mitzvah, pp. 13ff). The ritual itself is incumbent upon the father, who may delegate a Mohel, a Jewish physician, or any qualified Jew. It must be performed on the eighth day after birth (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 262.1; Gates of Mitzvah, p. 14; see Responsa #55-58 below). This remains the accepted practice for Reform Jews.
Current medical fashions are irrelevant in this matter as we consider circumcision to be a religious rite, not a health measure. Unless ill health or serious medical problems prevent the circumcision of a male infant on the eighth day, he should be circumcised on that day. If such a child is not circumcised, he would nevertheless be considered a Jew (San. 44a; Hoffmann, Melamed Leho-il, Yoreh De-a, #79). It would be incumbent upon such an individual to be circumcised later in life (Kid. 29a; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 261.1). We would encourage uncircumcised children to be circumcised later. Certainly parents would not want to inflict this much more serious and painful operation on their adult son when it can be done easily on the eighth day.
Circumcision remains for us an essential sign of the covenant. We have affirmed it since the days of Abraham, our Father, and continue to affirm it.
Officiating in a Civil Capacity
QUESTION: May a rabbi officiate in a civil capacity in a wedding involving two Catholics? What is our Reform response to such a request? (Peter Schweitzer, New York NY)
ANSWER: There is nothing in the tradition which deals with a situation even remotely akin to this. The procedure used by Jewish military chaplains in the wartime emergency of giving last rites to Catholics was limited to that emergency. In this instance, although it may be legally possible for a rabbi to perform a civil marriage of two Catholics, it would be wrong to do so because of marit ayin. As most rabbis do not marry a Jew to a non-Jew, this kind of participation would be bizarre. A rabbi should not conduct such a ceremony for it appears as if he/she is willing to marry anyone without religious considerations.
A rabbi should be involved only in qidushin and not in the marriages of other religions or civil marriages. It would be difficult because of our orientation to avoid some religious overtones in such a wedding ceremony and that would be inappropriate.
The rabbi may, of course, give a toast or something akin to that at the festivities following the wedding. That would clearly indicate to everyone that the rabbi is present as a friend and not participating in the actual marriage ceremony. We should not engage in a civil marriage.
The Case of the Eighty-Year-Old Mother
The 80-year-old mother of one of your congregants is choosing to starve herself to death. She says that her quality of life is no longer what she wants it to be - she is in a wheelchair but otherwise is in relatively good health for someone her age - and she simply does not want to live anymore. Should my congregant allow her mother starve herself to death, or should she intervene, for example, by ordering forced nutrition and hydration?
Responsa
This case demands that we consider the very definition of a “terminal illness,” the medical situation that raises the possibility of the withdrawal or cessation of medical treatment. This patient’s condition should not be defined as such; she is not “terminally ill.” Her confinement to a wheelchair does not pose a mortal threat to her. Although she is dissatisfied with her “quality of life,” she is said to be otherwise in good health. The choice to end her life would be defined as suicide and not the discontinuation of futile medical treatment. The fact that a person does not wish to live with a certain permanent disability does not render that disability a “terminal illness,” and it most certainly does not justify the self-destructive measures that this person contemplates. The proper recourse would seem to be counseling, psychological and pastoral intervention, rather than acceding to her expressed desire to starve herself to death.
On the other hand, while it is clear to us that this person is morally obligated to accept food and water, the question of forcing her to do so is not as easy to decide. As we note in a recent teshuvah,[6] even though an individual is required by Jewish tradition to accept proven medical therapy, the administration of that therapy against the patient’s will may involve a degree of force and violence that would cause harm to the patient and rob the treatment of some or much of its therapeutic value. The same would be true of nutrition and hydration, whether or not we define these in the same category as “medical therapy.”[7] Clearly, force feeding is an absolutely last resort, and the patient’s daughter and physicians must weigh the conflicting factors most carefully before authorizing such an extreme step.
Loyalty to One's Company Versus Love for Israel
A congregant works for a company which is developing some technology systems with military applications for Arab countries which do not have peace treaties with Israel. He is torn between loyalty to the company for which he works and his devotion to the Jewish people and the State of Israel. He would like to inform discreetly someone in the Israeli consulate, but he is also concerned about his job security: he has a wife and three children, and he would clearly lose his job were it discovered that he leaked information.
Responsa
One's love for the State of Israel does not necessarily outweigh other vital religious moral responsibilities. As is always the case when our responsibilities conflict, we must arrive at a balance among the priorities they set for us. In this case, the sho'el is under no religious or moral obligation to risk his job and the welfare of his family by informing Israeli government officials of his company's business activities with Arab states. And, should such informing violate a statute of American law, his action would transgress the principle of dina demalkhuta dina. He is an American citizen, and Jewish tradition permits and expects him to act as such.
|
|
|
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
TempleJudea.com is not responsible for them in any way. |
Add your comment...
|
|
|
Return to the Sermons main page