Overall, I substantively agree with Rabbi Bieler.  Our tradition certainly prohibits the intentional wasting of our natural resources.  And as he noted, we are particularly careful with food to try to find a use for any leftovers so that as little food as possible is discarded.  Yet, Shabbat and other festival meals are supposed to be celebratory and special.  So larger varieties of food do get served and portion sizes tend to be larger, which I think is OK. The gray area here is what is the limit?  I think your question brings up the point that we have to be mindful of that line between enhancing a meal appropriately for Shabbat and going too far.  More is not always better. Thanks for asking the question.

How do you fulfill a sense of obligation and emotional ties when a person is narcissistic and self-serving?

I want to first say that I agree with much of what Rabbi Shudnow wrote.  It can indeed be hurtful, frustrating and painful to continue to engage in a relationship with someone whom you perceive is narcissistic and does not seem to be sensitive to your feelings.  Depending on the relationship, this would clearly be a justification for limiting ties or for changing the way in which you interact with that individual.  So while I agree with Rabbi Shudnow that we are obligated to avoid passing ultimate judgment on the character of others – that is for God alone to do -- we cannot dismiss the fact that such a person may hurt us over and over when we continue to put our trust in them.  That being the case, it would be cruel to force someone to endure that again and again.  Yet, for those closest to us there can be ways to support them and care for them that limits our emotional exposure.  In other words, this is not an all or nothing scenario in which one must decide either to be in such a relationship or not.  Depending on the specifics there is often an in-between that might allow one to fulfill one’s obligations to another without undue or overmuch suffering.  If this question is about a parent/child or child/parent relationship there are certain obligations inherent in these that can rarely be abrogated, as Rabbi Shundow noted.  A more focused and specific look at your particular situation in light of Jewish law would be required to help decide what the best path would be. 

This is an excellent question.  Perhaps there are “better/more effective” ways of responding and these should be explored.  However, just to note, in addition to the proposed boycotting of the products of these distillers, Jewish organizations have embarked on an educational and political campaign as well. They have been engaged in attempting to educate local governments in that region, and the other businesses that work with these distilleries, as well as the distilleries themselves, about the issues.  We hope that during this process they will see that a boycott of Israeli products is not just.  In addition, we hope that the new relationships our community is forming with them will also lead to more understanding in the future.

Yet, at the same time, since essentially we are dealing with businesses, it is important to let such businesses know that their consumers purchase products, not just based on the product’s quality, but on the ethics of the company that produces them.  By saying that we will not buy from you because you are taking an unjust stance against Israel, we are using our peaceful prerogative to purchase with our conscience.  Perhaps that will draw their attention to the issue and motivate them to become more educated on the subject. 

According to Biblical and Jewish tradition human beings were made in the Divine Image and thus are obligated to treat their lives and bodies with the highest form of respect and care.  Further in Deuteronomy 4:15 we are explicitly commanded to take good care of our lives.  This value was codified in Jewish law in many places, most famously by Maimonides who wrote, “It is a positive commandment to remove any stumbling block which constitutes a danger and to be on guard against it.  The Sages have prohibited many things because they endanger one’s life”.  Further Rabbi Mosheh Isreles, the author of the gloss on one of our greatest codes (the Shulkhan Arukh), wrote: “. . . one should avoid all things that might lead to danger”.

Applying these teachings to your question, in my view, leads to the conclusion that Jewish law prohibits even occasional smoking “without inhaling”, as well.  Due to the fact that it is our obligation to remove any “stumbling block” and that we must avoid anything that “leads” to danger, even placing a cigarette in one’s mouth can be seen as forbidden.  The temptation to have more than one, to inhale even when one intends not to, or even to do so accidentally, is much too strong.  Further, since nicotine is clearly understood as an addictive substance any regular contact with it should be seen as imperiling.  Further, there may be other real health risks, eg. cancer of the lip or mouth, etc. even when one does not inhale.  Finally, even if there was no harm that could come to oneself from such a circumstance, the second hand smoke produced by the cigarette or cigar could harm others, which would certainly prohibit such an activity from both a legal and ethical perspective.

I will say that if the occasional cigarette or cigar is part of an approved program of quitting smoking, and that this demonstrates a marked decrease in smoking from what is typical for someone, this should probably be encouraged.  However, the idea of having an occasional cigarette which one does not inhale must only be a stage in a program that leads to the cessation of smoking entirely for this to be considered “OK” on some level.  From a halakhic or legal point of view, however, the activity of smoking is still always forbidden.

Is there a problem accepting a business loan from a close Jewish relative with the understanding that the loan will be paid back with an extremely low interest rate, considering that Jewish law prohibits a Jew from charging another Jew interest?

In Exodus 22:24 it states, “If you lend money to My people, to the poor, do not act toward them as a creditor; exact no interest from them.”  And in Deuteronomy 23:20 it states, “You shall not deduct interest from loans to your countrymen, whether in money or food or anything else that can be deducted as interest.”  In addition in Leviticus 25:35-38 it states, “If your kinsman, being in straits, comes under your authority . . . do not exact from him advance or accrued interest . . .   Do not lend him your money at advance interest . . . I the Lord am your God”

Based on these verses the Torah is clear that any interest charged to a fellow Jew as part of a direct loan, no matter how low the rate, is expressly forbidden.  This is called by the rabbis ribbit kezuzah.  Therefore, the simple legal answer to your question is that there is indeed a problem with a Jew (even more so a close relative) loaning another Jew money with interest of any kind.

Broadening this issue though, from a legal point of view, I would point out a few other laws that allow for some more flexibility in the extension of loans with interest.  One, according to Jewish law one can accept a loan with interest from, and extend a loan with interest to, a non-Jew.  Two, some rabbinic authorities, as a general rule, permit loans with interest to be accepted when they are given by corporations (ex. banks), instead of individuals, even if Jews are employees or executives in such corporations.  Finally, there is also a legal mechanism called the heter iska that is employed throughout the State of Israel, where this issue could potentially pose a major obstacle to conducting regular financial and banking transactions.  A heter iska is essentially an approved way of restructuring a loan or debt so that it becomes an investment instead of a loan. This presumes that the investor assumes some element of risk should the business fail, which is one basic difference between an investment and a loan. An investor could potentially lose money, whereas a borrower always remains responsible to pay.  The words heter iska actually mean, performing an allowable business deal that is similar to a prohibited transaction.  Thus, by restructuring the transaction, investments that pay dividends replace loans that incur interest payments.   

From an ethical point of view it is clear from the context in both Exodus and Leviticus that the main idea of the prohibition against interest is not to take advantage of those within one’s community who are in need.  Presumably, if one is asking for a loan it is because one is in need of financial help.  A fellow citizen and Jew who has the ability should provide that loan without seeking profit for himself.  Parenthetically, this value represents the foundation for the impetus to create Hebrew Free Loan Societies, which in the modern era helped so many Jews establish themselves in this country. 

Veteran's Day is an opportunity to honor our veterans. What does Judaism say about defending one's country and fighting for freedom?

Jewish law is clear about our right to self-defense.  According to the Talmud if someone is pursuing you (as referenced in Deuteronomy 19) with the intention of killing you, then you are obligated to defend yourself, even if that means you must kill the other.  On a larger scale, in terms of battle, if one’s city is attacked, the Talmud also obligates us to defend ourselves and even permits us to break Shabbat in order to do so.  Maimonides and certain other important Jewish legal decisors also include permission for preemptive attacks against known would-be aggressors if it is perceived that doing so will save the lives of our fellow countrymen, who could be classified as the would-be defenders.  In other words, defending one’s own life and the lives of one’s fellow citizens from attack is a basic right and obligation.  Therefore, one who does so in a proper and holy way should be honored.    

The law in regard to fighting for freedom and defending human rights when there is not a clear and present danger to the self or a fellow citizen is a more complicated legal matter.  However, we are informed by our legal tradition on this matter by the commandments to redeem captives and to defend the basic moral laws of Noah.  Past Jewish legalists have made the case that we are obligated to fight for freedom and the rights of others, wherever they are, if the offending nation or group has demonstrated they will essentially hold their citizens captive or deny them basic ethical rights.  In this view it is permissable and possibly obligatory to fight in these situations as well.

Clearly all those who have risked, or sacrificed, their lives to defend others or to defend freedom and human rights, deserve our honor and lasting respect.

Essentially the answer to your question is “yes” -- giving gifts on Hanukkah seems to be borrowed from the Christmas tradition to do so.  Some trace this borrowing back to Europe while others say this custom mainly became adopted by Jews in the 1950’s here in the United States.  In any case, there is no evidence of gift-giving on Hanukkah, for example, from any Talmudic or early rabbinic source.  The idea of giving gelt though did develop over time in the Jewish tradition and many have claimed that the original aim of this custom was to inculcate a sense of giving charity over the holiday, while others saw it simply as a form of gift, not too unlike the current custom.  The traditional understanding of why gelt is given as a gift on Hanukkah is in order to reward children for their knowledge of the holiday and its customs.  Those holding this perspective gave gelt to their children in response to answering questions about Hanukkah and after  reciting the history of the holiday.  In that view giving gifts would be just fine as long as they are given for the purpose of drawing a child closer to his/her roots or given to help promote the child’s Hanukkah education.  Still, the idea of giving gelt is clearly accompanied by the concept of being joyous on Hanukkah and while we would like to avoid promoting materialism or imitating Christmas, appropriate and modest gift giving can certainly add to the fun and joy of the holiday as well.

With the latest news of bombs sent on airplanes to target Chicago synagogues, people are justifiably even more nervous about terrorism than usual. But how do we reconcile being cautious with appearing in any way racist or prejudiced?

I think that your question speaks to a very important and difficult issue.  As the other panelists suggested, Judaism allows and requires us to defend ourselves.  We have to be cautious when caution is required.  Yet, we have to be careful not to indict a whole religion or cultural group for the actions of some of the members, even if we feel that the number of their members participating in such activity is large or growing. 

However, we cannot ignore facts, for example, certain countries have become “hotbeds” for the training of such terrorists, so we must take precautions that are appropriate and backed up by the security information on the ground.  We avoid becoming prejudiced or racist by not extrapolating these security facts and methods to speak to all members of a particular terrorist’s religion or ethnic group in all situations.  Keeping our focus honors our tradition's imperative that we protect ourselves and keeps us away from violating our prohibitions against falsley judging others.     

Are there any Jewish legal or religious traditions that run counter to celebrating Halloween, traditionally a pagan holiday, but now more or less a secular one?

Most traditional authorities do indeed forbid Jews from participating in Halloween rituals of any kind.  The basis, from my understanding, is that Halloween has known pagan origins and that therefore, by partaking, Jews would be participating in pagan worship and would be betraying their Jewish faith.

However, as you remark in your question, Halloween has essentially lost any of its pagan intentionality.  While it is clearly true that some of the pagan symbols of holiday remain, they mostly exist to entertain.  Further, the costumes the children wear are not exclusively ghosts and witches but whatever they desire.  Therefore, I am not sure that in terms of strict halakha (Jewish law) that a firm prohibition holds.  While I admit that it could be argued either way, it is sensible to hold that children dressing up in costumes and going from door to door to get candy is not really akin to participating in pagan worship.

The question for me, therefore, is more about education.  What do our children learn from participating in what we call a “holiday” that is not a Jewish one?  If one feels that Halloween is more like Thanksgiving and one can educate their child to think of it that way, perhaps it would be perfectly fine.  If one links it to holidays of other faiths, like Christmas, I think educationally there could be a serious problem and it could result in confusing the religious identity of the child. 

Tea Party adherents claim global warming is a myth. As politicians spread such lies, and during an election year when odds are likely that Republicans will gain ground in Congress, the danger that fewer government programs will be put in place to combat climate change becomes more and more real. As Jews, how can we help to share scientific truths about global warming and continue to do our duty to repair the world?

 In the Book of Genesis, the Torah commands human beings to “tend” the earth.  As well in the Midrash, our sages remind us that if we fail in this mission there will be on one else to carry it on.  Therefore, our tradition is very concerned that we, as Jews and human beings, care for the world that God has given us. 

We do this by educating our children and the rest of our community about this important role that we must play.  We do this through social action programming focused on environmental causes, Mitzvah Days of action when we do our part, and through fund raising to support environmentally conscious organizations.  And we do this as a community through organizations such as COEJL (Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life), who help organize the Jewish community around these issues.  While there are many opinions as to how best to preserve our environment, we can use all of these methods to put our best foot forward as Jews and as individuals.

The 33 Chilean miners rescued on October 13 made a pact with each other while trapped underground for 69 days that they wouldn't share publicly the details of their experiences. But in the midst of their own poverty combined with significant media attention, some of them have broken that pact. Are they allowed to break a promise to each other in order to take care of themselves and their families?

Within the Jewish tradition the pronouncement of an oath is taken very seriously.  Once one is made, only a court of Jewish law can release someone from it.  However, in a technical sense, from a halakhic (Jewish legal) point of view, an oath involves a Jew making a promise that invokes God's name.  Therefore, standard halakha is not directly relevant in this case.  Yet, the value our tradition places on promises does inform the discussion.   

From an ethical point of view, with so little knowledge on the exact terms of the pact, it is very difficult to judge.  While Jewish tradition clearly places a heavy premium on an oath, or promise, it places an even larger premium on the preservation of life.  If the pact was broken to save a life, it is likely that Jewish tradition would stand by that decision.  On the other hand, it is important to think about how one person’s breaking of the pact would affect the other miners.  If doing so would cause them tangible harm, this could complicate the ethics of such a decision.  Still, the sanctity of life remains supreme.

As you point out in your question, when it comes to discussion about important matters, passionate debate is part and parcel of Jewish discourse.  Yet, both in the Torah itself and throughout rabbinic literature there are numerous examples that demonstrate how important respect and honor are when having such debates.  In each of the codes of Jewish law, for instance, there are rules for how one should conduct oneself in public speech so as not to offend the honor of another.  The concept is that one can passionately disagree with another’s ideas while still respecting their humanity and dignity as a fellow human being (Kavod Habriyut).  In fact, the former is conditional on the latter.  “Elu v’Elu Divrei Elokim Hayim” – “These and these are the words of the living God”.  This verse is taken to mean that when both parties are arguing for the sake of heaven (l’shem shamayim), the result of such a debate, even if it results in disagreement, is holy.  When we debate properly our tradition sees it as a sacred endeavor; when we do not, when our discourse lacks civility and higher purpose, such debate is simply destructive.  The best example of this in rabbinic literature is the debate between the great sages, Rabbi Joshua and Resh Lakish, during which Rabbi Joshua regrettably insulted Resh Lakish’s character.  The Talmud essentially tells us that Resh Lakish died from the insult and that Rabbi Joshua never recovered from the loss and tragedy of what his insult had set in motion.  Two great sages were in essence ruined by disrespectful discourse.  On the other hand, our Talmud contains pages and pages of debates and differing opinions where even the opinion that was not accepted was respectfully recorded for future consideration.  It is to this ideal that we strive. 

Is an "unveiling ceremony" (of a headstone in a cemetery) required by Jewish law - rather than by Jewish custom?

Historically what Jewish law and practice have required is the actual placement of a headstone at the grave of their relative (Hakamat Hamatzeivah).  Jewish graves are not allowed to be unmarked.  However, there is no actual legal requirement to hold a ceremony (which we now call “the unveiling” or “dedication”) to mark the placement of the stone.  However, participation in such a ceremony has become standard practice, or custom, amongst most Jews of all streams, at least in the United States.  Custom as to when such a ceremony should occur varies.  According to some, this can (and should) be done immediately after shivah (the seven day mourning period).  Others wait until after shloshim (the thirty day period) and others wait a full year.

Rabbi Michael Schwab

The Torah actually dedicates three separate verses to remind and reinforce a child’s obligation to one’s parents.  In these verses the Torah employs two different verbs to describe our obligation “Yirah” (fear) and “Kavod” (honor). “Yirah” was interpreted by the rabbis to indicate those actions we were forbidden to take against our parents, while “kavod” was interpreted to indicate the positive actions we should take to fulfill this commandment.  Many different classical sources attempt to enumerate and discuss a child’s obligations to parents, both positive and negative, in great detail.

Further, considering the fact that two of these verses appear as the fifth of the “Ten Commandments”, which were given to the ancient Israelites on Mt.Sinai, clearly our obligation in regard to parents was considered by the Torah to be extremely important. Rabbinic literature, in the Talmud, highlights the significance of the child’s obligation to one’s parent with a revealing vignette. A son is caring for his aging and ill father who asks him for a glass of water.  By the time he returns with the water, his father has fallen asleep. He therefore stands by his father’s bedside for hours, glass in hand, until his father wakes up, allowing him to fulfill his father’s original command at the first possible moment. In light of this story, our obligation to aging parents seems limitless. The logic seems to be that they helped give us life, so we owe them whatever we can give. 

In addition, elsewhere in Rabbinic literature, on several occasions, the rabbis inquire as to what the limit of financial support due to a parent might be.  While multiple opinions are shared, in essence the opinion that the child must support his parents with his own funds is upheld again and again.  To exactly what extent must one stretch financially, no hard and fast rule can fit every situation.  However, clearly there is a serious obligation that the child owes his parents in these situations that does demand that the child make reasonable sacrifices.  In situations in which the parents have acted in a pattern of wickedness or attempted to force the child to violate the commandments, things are not as clear.  For example, Yosef Karo who authored the major Jewish legal code, the Shulkhan Arukh, wrote “Even if his father is a wicked sinner, the son honors and reveres him.”  However, Rabbi Moshe Issreles, another great Jewish legal figure who wrote the gloss that appears integrated into Karo’s own text, wrote “There are those who say that one is not obligated to honor his wicked father unless he did teshuvah (sought repentance).”  In other words, according to Issreles, if your parents were wicked, both in general or to the child, this could release the child from the obligation to support the parent, unless the parent sincerely sought forgiveness.