![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Two letters in which the answer hinges on Jewish law
1. DEAR ABBY: I am 76. My husband and I planned our final wishes for cremation because I have had a lifelong fear of being buried underground. My children from my first marriage are Jewish and very much against cremation. When I told them my wishes, they attacked me with a barrage of negatives about cremation, such as, "You won't go to heaven," "You won't see your deceased mother or grandson in heaven," "We won't be able to say kaddish for you," etc., so I immediately changed my plans. My husband and I purchased side-by-side crypts, thinking it was an acceptable alternative.
I was wrong. For the last month, they have continued to push me to change to a regular burial. I finally had enough and told them to respect my choices and never discuss this with me again. So now, no contact at all except an occasional text from my grandchildren. Any advice or help would be appreciated. -- UNHAPPY IN FLORIDA
DEAR UNHAPPY: I assume from your letter that you are neither a conservative nor an orthodox Jew. Because your question involves Jewish law (which is outside my area of expertise), I ran your question by the most brilliant rabbi I know, Rabbi Elliot Dorff, who teaches at the American Jewish University in Los Angeles. In part, this is what he had to say:
"The prohibition against cremation comes from the belief that your body belongs to God, not to you personally. It's not unlike renting an apartment. Part of the lease agreement is that you will not destroy or harm the property before you cease residency. (There is no restriction on piercing, which was practiced by Jewish women and men from the time of the exodus from Egypt. As for tattooing, the restriction against it goes back to the days when the Jews were fighting with the Canaanites, who used tattooing in their religious rites.)
"The restriction regarding cremation came about because of the belief that it is actively destroying God's property. According to the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, cremation is prohibited, but if people do that their cremains may be buried in a Jewish cemetery -- but, unlike what your children are threatening, it has nothing to do with what happens after death. There are differences on this subject. Nobody knows what happens after death, not even rabbis. Jewish people have a positive commandment to save a life. Organ donation would be an example of this. Although it might be considered 'damaging a body,' saving a life takes precedence."
Rabbi Dorff said your children need to know there's a disagreement among rabbis as to whether interment in a mausoleum is equivalent to burial in the ground. So, cremation may be "out" for you, but you can be laid to rest next to your husband in a crypt. What is of utmost importance is that your relationship with your children be restored. In the precious time you are on this side of the sod, you and your children need to be able to love and enjoy each other. Weapons like threats and blackmail should not be used.
https://www.arcamax.com/healthandspirit/lifeadvice/dearabby/s-2832409
*******************
2. Around a decade ago, my mom informed each of her children that she and my stepfather put a codicil in their wills disinheriting any of their children married to someone not recognized as Jewish by her local Orthodox Rabbinate.
I believe a will is not just about money; it’s also an expression of values and love. I have strongly objected to this codicil, or more specifically, to her having informed us about it: The two are thereby using their wealth as an implicit weapon in service of their religious views.
She says I’m reading too much into it. She claims she informed us in the name of “transparency,” so we wouldn’t be surprised later, and that it’s her money to do with as she pleases, anyway — though she concedes that she also informed us in case it may influence decisions we make.
I’ve since married someone who fits her definition of a Jew, so the codicil doesn’t apply to me. Still, I have three middle-aged siblings who are all not religious and unmarried, and I think they remain so at least partially because they’re stuck, unable to both follow their hearts and avoid betraying my mother’s love — and its most powerful signifier, her will. Is she right to have the codicil? And to have told us about it? — Name Withheld
What your mother and her husband are planning to do, as it happens, is at odds with much rabbinical thought concerning inheritance. A Judaic scholar I conferred with confirms that the mainstream Talmudic tradition of Halakha, or Jewish law, revered by the Orthodox Union, holds that apostates don’t forfeit their right to inherit. (Maimonides would allow a rabbinical court to fine an apostate at its discretion — but the permission is not given to the parents.) And then marrying a non-Jew isn’t as severe a transgression as apostasy; so if an actual apostate retains the right to inherit, it’s clear that someone who has merely married a non-Jew does as well. You might think that it’s awkward to penalize your kids for departing from Halakha by departing from Halakha yourself. But picking and choosing from the traditions you are going to respect is a widespread practice among Jews and gentiles alike.
The real question is whether the scheme is wise or decent. I fear that it is neither. That your siblings now have an incentive to postpone marriage until your parents are dead raises doubts about its wisdom. That your siblings might marry someone acceptable to the Orthodox rabbinate in order to secure this inheritance raises doubts about its decency. Whom we marry is properly up to us. Parents may express their views; coercion, though, is wrong. Does threatening to deprive someone of a substantial inheritance amount to coercion? Different understandings of coercion will come out differently on this. But it’s too close for comfort.
You suggest that once your mother and stepfather decided not to leave money to a child who hadn’t married the right kind of Jew, it would have been better had they kept it to themselves. That’s an odd conclusion, but a cogent one: They should have restricted themselves to morally acceptable forms of suasion. In the meantime, you might encourage them to discuss their codicil with a rabbi, who could explain to them what the Jewish sages had to say on the subject.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/magazine/disinherit-ethics.html
I was wrong. For the last month, they have continued to push me to change to a regular burial. I finally had enough and told them to respect my choices and never discuss this with me again. So now, no contact at all except an occasional text from my grandchildren. Any advice or help would be appreciated. -- UNHAPPY IN FLORIDA
DEAR UNHAPPY: I assume from your letter that you are neither a conservative nor an orthodox Jew. Because your question involves Jewish law (which is outside my area of expertise), I ran your question by the most brilliant rabbi I know, Rabbi Elliot Dorff, who teaches at the American Jewish University in Los Angeles. In part, this is what he had to say:
"The prohibition against cremation comes from the belief that your body belongs to God, not to you personally. It's not unlike renting an apartment. Part of the lease agreement is that you will not destroy or harm the property before you cease residency. (There is no restriction on piercing, which was practiced by Jewish women and men from the time of the exodus from Egypt. As for tattooing, the restriction against it goes back to the days when the Jews were fighting with the Canaanites, who used tattooing in their religious rites.)
"The restriction regarding cremation came about because of the belief that it is actively destroying God's property. According to the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, cremation is prohibited, but if people do that their cremains may be buried in a Jewish cemetery -- but, unlike what your children are threatening, it has nothing to do with what happens after death. There are differences on this subject. Nobody knows what happens after death, not even rabbis. Jewish people have a positive commandment to save a life. Organ donation would be an example of this. Although it might be considered 'damaging a body,' saving a life takes precedence."
Rabbi Dorff said your children need to know there's a disagreement among rabbis as to whether interment in a mausoleum is equivalent to burial in the ground. So, cremation may be "out" for you, but you can be laid to rest next to your husband in a crypt. What is of utmost importance is that your relationship with your children be restored. In the precious time you are on this side of the sod, you and your children need to be able to love and enjoy each other. Weapons like threats and blackmail should not be used.
https://www.arcamax.com/healthandspirit/lifeadvice/dearabby/s-2832409
2. Around a decade ago, my mom informed each of her children that she and my stepfather put a codicil in their wills disinheriting any of their children married to someone not recognized as Jewish by her local Orthodox Rabbinate.
I believe a will is not just about money; it’s also an expression of values and love. I have strongly objected to this codicil, or more specifically, to her having informed us about it: The two are thereby using their wealth as an implicit weapon in service of their religious views.
She says I’m reading too much into it. She claims she informed us in the name of “transparency,” so we wouldn’t be surprised later, and that it’s her money to do with as she pleases, anyway — though she concedes that she also informed us in case it may influence decisions we make.
I’ve since married someone who fits her definition of a Jew, so the codicil doesn’t apply to me. Still, I have three middle-aged siblings who are all not religious and unmarried, and I think they remain so at least partially because they’re stuck, unable to both follow their hearts and avoid betraying my mother’s love — and its most powerful signifier, her will. Is she right to have the codicil? And to have told us about it? — Name Withheld
What your mother and her husband are planning to do, as it happens, is at odds with much rabbinical thought concerning inheritance. A Judaic scholar I conferred with confirms that the mainstream Talmudic tradition of Halakha, or Jewish law, revered by the Orthodox Union, holds that apostates don’t forfeit their right to inherit. (Maimonides would allow a rabbinical court to fine an apostate at its discretion — but the permission is not given to the parents.) And then marrying a non-Jew isn’t as severe a transgression as apostasy; so if an actual apostate retains the right to inherit, it’s clear that someone who has merely married a non-Jew does as well. You might think that it’s awkward to penalize your kids for departing from Halakha by departing from Halakha yourself. But picking and choosing from the traditions you are going to respect is a widespread practice among Jews and gentiles alike.
The real question is whether the scheme is wise or decent. I fear that it is neither. That your siblings now have an incentive to postpone marriage until your parents are dead raises doubts about its wisdom. That your siblings might marry someone acceptable to the Orthodox rabbinate in order to secure this inheritance raises doubts about its decency. Whom we marry is properly up to us. Parents may express their views; coercion, though, is wrong. Does threatening to deprive someone of a substantial inheritance amount to coercion? Different understandings of coercion will come out differently on this. But it’s too close for comfort.
You suggest that once your mother and stepfather decided not to leave money to a child who hadn’t married the right kind of Jew, it would have been better had they kept it to themselves. That’s an odd conclusion, but a cogent one: They should have restricted themselves to morally acceptable forms of suasion. In the meantime, you might encourage them to discuss their codicil with a rabbi, who could explain to them what the Jewish sages had to say on the subject.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/magazine/disinherit-ethics.html
no subject
I wasn't curious until I read the parenthetical, but now I kinda want to know. If you want to share, that is, and "I don't think need exploring" is intended strictly literally rather than as a way of saying "I don't want to talk about it". In which case, nevermind.
I'm glad you and your father were able to compromise on what happened to his body. It's hard when people can't agree on that sort of thing.
no subject
Oh! I should totally have been clearer, by the way, that I spell it with a small J for myself but I certainly don't lowercase other Jewish people. My small J is down to a distinction between Jewishness and Judaism, if you see what I mean; my father was bar mitzvah but my mother was raised Methodist, and I grew up Unitarian, so I have all the heritage and none (or very little) of the religion. Like: enough that every single person who has ever reminded me that I'm "not really Jewish" because matrilineal etc. has annoyed me, but not enough to take any formal actions about it. (Or, as I once said to a rabbi friend, it would probably be relatively easy for me to convert—except that I don't think I should have to.)
no subject
Edit: And to be clear, obviously if you haven't asked for anybody else's opinion on your Jew-credentials, then your opinion is the only one that matters.
no subject
Yeah it's generally something like -
them: [something something Judaica]
me: [something something Judaica]
them: Oh, are you Jewish?
me: Half. On my father's side, so the "wrong" half, ha ha.
them: Oh, yeah, so no, because it comes from the mother.
Like I have already made it clear that I'm aware of the matrilineal thing and am excluding myself. So it's not that others are shutting me out. (Many probably think they're simply agreeing with me.) But they are, a bit; it's a segment of the population that feels the need to respond by reinforcing that exclusion, brightening the line I've drawn, rather than saying either (a) something inclusive (which I realize I don't have any reason to expect, and I don't say "on my father's side, so the 'wrong' half" to fish for inclusion) or (b) —which I think is all that's actually called for—"Oh."
no subject
no subject
*fistbump of solidarity*
no subject
no subject