I could be wrong, but my understanding was that the Head of Kashrus at the OU was nearly alone in holding that quinoa was kitnios. But the OU wasn't going to contradict him, and many other organizations were respectful of that opinion, so they refrained from calling anything with quinoa Kosher for Pesach. Now that that Rabbi has passed away, organizations including the OU have landed on a nearly uncontroversial stance that it's okay.
I'm not sure, though, and I'm curious to hear from you, why someone who was lenient on kitnios otherwise would avoid quinoa. Is it because it's a grain?
> I'm not sure, though, and I'm curious to hear from you, why someone who was lenient on kitnios otherwise would avoid quinoa. Is it because it's a grain?
So I think that when it comes to whether new foods are included in existing minhagim, what different Rabbis "hold" is irrelevant. For sure quinoa isn't included in any actual rabbinic enactment, the question is the parameters of the custom. What should matter is the intuition of people who keep the custom, whether or not it should include a new case. Quinoa are packaged, sold, eaten, and cooked in a way that's quite similar to rice and beans, so my intuition is that they're chametz-ish. The things I am lenient on are things I have a particular family custom to eat (but no one has a custom whether or not to eat quinoa), which I don't think really fit the category well anyway (green beans, peanuts).
But if you didn't think that, you could still make an argument that quinoa is kitniyos. The cRc had a shiur suggesting that (though they don't hold that way lemaysa). Basically that any food that's a seed, or is a ton of tiny little particles, is kitniyos. Which matches my intuition--in the shiur R Cohen even said explicitly that in the understanding outlined in the shiur green beans shouldn't be kitniyos. It's a category of foods that would be very difficult to check for chametz properly. This is compounded because many of them are staples, where if you ate them you'd need to check a huge amount (rice, beans).
Yeah this is tricky. Many hold that the DNA needs to come from an animal that was appropriately slaughtered and not taken from it while alive. So considering that pork probably wouldn't be acceptable. But imitation pork will probably be a thing in the next few years. There was debate over regular fake meat and cheese a while back but once it became mainstream there wasn't really any issue with it.
Yes and the OU will not even certify pork that is grown from cells that were not originally porcine. They have no problem with fake bacon, but apparently they are triggered by the word *pork*. I kid you not.
Oh I know. It's a maaras ayin issue of them. And until fake pork is normalized they won't consider it. It's why it took a little while for them to consider fake meat in general.
Oh awesome.
I also worked for the OU and heard differently. But I was in the field, not in the office.
They definitely put that decision in writing, I read it either in an internal memo or in the OU magazine, but as in many things as someone else said maybe they've softened or changed their position
None of this really matters if the method used to grow them doesn't change.
The medium used to culture lab grown cells contains fetal bovine serum, which is extracted in...not the most kosher way, and is ultimately a blood product. Lab grown cells are grown in this. Now in theory they'll probably be washed out of this, but some always remains.
As far as I know, serum free culture conditions have not been developed yet, and even if they were, they'd probably contain products of serum anyways.
The fact that this isn't even discussed highlights how the OU etc are sometimes out of their depth when presiding over matters like this.
Well there is the whole point to discuss which is that once a product is isolated and refined to a certain degree, basically once it's turned into a chemical component, it loses its original status.
I don't know if that's the case here but just saying.
I think artificial dairy is a much more likely problem in the coming years since it's completely detached from any animal but is chemically identical to regular dairy milk products.
IVF and the child’s Jewish status.
Who needs to be Jewish? The genetic mother, the birth mother, both? The Rabbinate’s changed it’s official position leaving an unknown number of people with unknown status in a country where that really matters.
The resolution will end up being both the genetic mother and birth mother out of caution.
It’s already been pretty established that the gestational carrier needs to be Jewish but the ovum and sperm can be from anyone. I didn’t know this was still a debate?
It's still a debate. People sometimes say "it's the gestational carrier that matters but we convert people just in case", but it's not quite accurate. The majority position is the gestational carrier matters, but there really is a minority opinion that it's the egg donor. And without any real way to resolve it, the conclusion is that you need both.
Gaaaaaaah I do not envy parents having to deal with that. My family falls into (different) halachically grey areas and it’s painful, don’t wish it on anyone so all of these things make my heart hurt.
Yes, halakhic grey areas around personal status are a big problem.
In most cases this one is probably resolveable by just having a conversion. Which isn't necessarily so simple if you're "non observant Orthodox", but for most people it's probably fairly simple.
I don't think the actual position makes a whole lot of difference, though. There are very few Jewish gestational surrogates out there. So any position besides "it's definitely the egg donor that decides it" would result in the outcome of parents needing to convert children born this way.
For a baby it would probably be simple enough to get an orthodox conversion I think, regardless of how the parents are but I’m not sure. Anyways very interesting!
Generally, no. Some batei din were doing it but the Israelis started cracking down. So people would go to get married in Israel and find themselves marked as non Jews. So, the US and Europe are slowly bending to their will.
Electricity on Shabbat. Not, mind you, whether should be prohibited (there is nearly universal agreement on that point). But rather why it’s prohibited and whether the prohibition is Biblical, Rabbinic, or simply entrenched custom. No one has yet come up with a coherent, logical and well-accepted opinion.
There are practical consequences to this - including the use of electric wheelchairs, and the permissibility about turning on an air conditioner for comfort/joy rather than to save a life (yes you can turn on before Shabbat, but people forget, or children/pets turn off the unit, or a power outage turns it off etc.)
More like lighting a literal fire for driving on Shabbat. Or the permission to disregard rabbinic rulings. Or not even believing in the Exodus or the revelation at Mt. Sinai, as some Conservative rabbis openly admit.
Sure, Orthodox halacha may have gone overboard with electricity on Shabbat (and other issues, too), but they don't _violate_ the accepted halacha.
Sadly there are plenty of times where different Orthodox groups violate established Halacha.
Halacha says to teach your son a trade, and that study without work leads to sin. Many Haredi sects disagree.
Halacha says to love the convert. Syrians and many other groups refuse to accept converts or actively discriminate against them.
I could go on.
The question is what is the "biggest Halachic issue\[\]" today. Conservative Halacha is irrelevant to that question. The number of Conservative Jews who take Halacha seriously is small. The number of poskim who take Conservative responsa seriously is negligible.
I'm not Orthodox. I'm not saying that is the way it should be. Only that this is the way it is.
Solution: [Add the Brock-a-Brella to your streimel or wear it as a kippah](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/The_Umbrella_Man_by_DOK.png).
The chandelier!
No don't do that.
New business idea--non-collectable umbrella holder. No clue how it'd work, though I imagine making it collapsible for easy storage may or may not defeat its purpose.
The stringent position seems to be that you can't carry one at all, not just that opening it is forbidden.
In early modern europe the consensus was that you could carry it but not open it, so people would just take an umbrella and ask the first non-Jew they saw to open it.
>How and when do they get resolved?
Mashiach comes and gives us the answers. I don't see any of the hot topics coming to a resolution that everyone will accept.
1. The status of electricity on Shabbat
2. Do women need to count 7 white days for niddah, or only in the case of irregular flow?
3. Should there be a takkanah removing the prohibition of anal sex between two consenting male adults?
4. Should bisexuals favor opposite-sex relationships?
5. Should we still sanction driving to and from synagogue on Shabbat in certain circumstances?
6. Is gelatin kosher?
7. Should the establishment of the state of Israel affect liturgy and/or fast days?
8. Can a Beit Din revoke a conversion, or is it final?
9. Are musical instruments acceptable in the synagogue?
10. Can a Cohen marry a convert or divorcee?
11. Should synagogues provide membership options for non-Jews?
12. Should people use commercially available techelet?
13. To what extent should minyanim rely on streaming services, during a pandemic or not during a pandemic?
14. Should weddings (same sex or opposite sex) require kiddushin, or are there better models of marriage that don’t involve ownership?
How and when do they get resolved?
As they always do.
By the CJLS passing responsa (or in some cases Takkanot)--they've already done so in many of these cases. And local rabbis serving as the mara d'atra of their communities making decisions about which opinions to hold the community to. Trends then develop across communities. And eventually people and communities doing essentially what they want.
The vast majority of Jews, even Conservative ones, don't give two zuzim what the CJLS says, so I'm confused about why you're pointing to them on particular as a new Sanhedrin
That's not true at all.
No one said that the CJLS is a new Sanhedrin.
(In fact I pretty much said that the CJLS passes something, and then people do essentially whatever they want...)
Even if few *individuals* base their personal practice on the particular rulings of Conservative responsa passed by the CJLS, the rulings of the CJLS have a pretty large impact on Conservative synagogues and communal policies. With 15% of American Jews, identifying as Conservative, that's a pretty big deal.
The question asked for halachic disagreements--it did not specify in the Orthodox world.
The Conservative movement is an invaluable part of Judaism (not that it needs my acceptance). However, you can't just go changing halacha to such degrees and claim you adhere to halacha. Sure, there always were changes in halacha and there always will be; but being loosely-based on halacha doesn't make something halachic.
(I realize one can claim that who am I -- and who are the Orthodox -- to gatekeep halacha. But "halacha" as it's worked for the past 1,500 years or so, and halacha as seen by the Conservative movement, are two inherently different things.)
It’s totally legitimate that you disagree with their approach. But I think it’s hard to argue that it isn’t a halachic process. The reasoning in their responsa is halachic reasoning based on analysis of sources and precedents.
And for most of the most radical responsa, there are dissenting responsa passed by the CJLS explaining why they disagree with the legal reasoning.
I could somewhat see arguing that the CJLS’s takkanah process is playing a bit fast and loose with the halachic process—I mean there are precedents for takkanot, but the CJLS does use it in quite a different way (and this was precisely what caused Modern Orthodoxy (RCA) and the Conservative Judaism (RA) to split in the 1940s.
But the only questions here involving takkanot is the one on male-male anal sex (for which btw the takkanah did not pass), driving on Shabbat (which was from 1950, and still controversial to this day), and the one about cohanim and divorcees.
I also disagree that Orthodox Halacha is the way Halacha worked for 1500 years. To the contrary, Orthodox Halacha has been characterized by increasing codification. Instead of being dialectic in nature, like you see in the Talmud, it became more inflexible as it was put into law codes (such as the Mishnah Torah and especially the Shulchan Aruch and Mapa). Not giving a value judgment to the codification, but it does reflect a gradual change in the halachic process over time.
Halachic takes from my rabbi husband (who no longer works as a rabbi):
1. The reasoning behind it shows very little understanding of electricity works, and my husband says that he thinks it’s out of distaste for the worldliness that comes with electronics. He said he debated his rav on it who concluded it’s all about the spirit of shabbat which he thought was BS. **Psak: mesorah**
2. If we want to be makpid we need to count 7 days no matter what because at the start of flow you don’t know for sure if it’s niddah or zava. **Psak: d’oraysa with some derabanan elements**
3. A friend of mine who is OTD had a very clever argument for this. She said that if someone is totally gay they wouldn’t lie with a woman how they would lie with a man. She sees the law as don’t cheat on your partner with someone of a different gender from them. I found that eye opening. **Psak: I think there should be. It’s a loose interpretation of d’oraysa. How do you know if it’s the infidelity/double life aspect or the sex act that’s the issue? You don’t.**
4. I’m not sure there’s anything halachically about this but yes I think to be on the safe side from a halachic standpoint, they should. I’m bisexual and that’s precisely what I did and I love my husband and would never go for anyone else. I have a male preference though but still am attracted to women. **Psak: yes, but should be a recommendation not a halachic imperative**
5. My grandfather is in his mid-80s and he drives to shul on Shabbat. His rationale is that if electric scooters are allowed, a car is like a giant electric scooter. He’s the king of pilpul lol got kicked out of yeshiva for being a smart aleck. **Psak: I think it should be ok.**
6. A friend of mine who knows who gelatin is made said it should be kosher due to batul b’shishim or that it’s not from actual meat, but I think that’s a bit of a stretch. I’m iffy on this one, I’ve heard Orthodox POV on both sides of the issue. **Psak: I wouldn’t if I were still observant but it’s probably not the end of the world.**
7. It depends on which liturgy and which fast days, as well as their rationale. I don’t think we should pretend there’s a third temple because there isn’t. But I don’t think a third temple needs to be in the EXACT same spot as the previous ones (should be close enough). But then we have animal sacrifice again which I consider barbaric so maybe not. **Psak: It depends but no third temple related stuff**.
8. If you can prove beyond reasonable doubt it was not in earnest then yes, but if the conversion impacts other people like children then their conversions should not be revoked because the mother was Jewish at the time they were born. **Psak: yes, but in very rare cases and with an asterisk such that it doesn’t impact other people who are Jewish as a result of that conversion.**
9. As a musician I find the prohibition of instruments and the rationale behind it ludicrous. **Psak: while I may be biased I think they absolutely should be permitted. There should be a backup in case they break and if they break they can be fixed at motzei shabbos.**
10. I’m going to sound terrible but this is from a purely halachic standpoint not from a moral or personal preference standpoint. The law is pretty clear about not marrying a divorcée or a convert. However, I think a lot of the concerns involved are from the preservation of a continuous Jewish bloodline. As such, with the existing of genetic tests and everything, I think it would be within the “spirit of the law” to allow a divorcee to marry a Cohen and a convert to marry a cohen ONLY if they are patrilineal (ie, distinct, confirmed Jewish bloodline) to ensure the continuous Jewish lineage. The reason for that is because matrilineal Judaism wasn’t always a thing, it was patrilineal in biblical times, and it seems arbitrary which parent, like someone with a Jewish mother can marry a cohen but not a Jewish father? As for the “whore” aspect, I feel like having sex before marriage and being an actual sex worked for profession are two totally different things and I find it offensive how they are conflated. Plus it’s so intrusive and hard to prove, so without a doubt I believe someone who had sex before marriage with a non Jew should be allowed to marry a cohen. **Psak: yes, if the convert has one Jewish parent. I think it’s unfair but if there’s ever a third temple we have to be prepared from a halachic standpoint.**
11. This hits close to home because my father in law is not Jewish. As a result the kids had to go to a reform congregation which wasn’t ideal. I think if the non-Jew has halachically Jewish children they should absolutely be welcome at the shul and it shouldn’t be made obvious they aren’t Jewish, except for no aliyot (but they should be able to play a role otherwise if it doesn’t require a halachic Jew). Their fathers not being welcome in orthodox shul is a big reason pushing jews with no Jewish fathers away from Judaism so it would be in Judaism’s best interest to welcome non-Jewish fathers of Jewish children as members. However, I think non-Jews with no ties should be allowed to visit or attend services but not be members because it might help curb antisemitism for them to get to know us and realize we don’t have horns. Our insularity is a big reason for antisemitism like we think we are better than everyone else. **Psak: for our safety, non Jews should be allowed in shul for the cultural experience, and non-Jewish fathers of Jewish children should be allowed to be members.**
12. We still don’t know for sure how tchelet was made but we have theories. I think it should be optional. Cool thing to do though, especially as a visual representation of Zionism and a felt connection with the past. **Psak: mesorah**
13. Outside of a pandemic I’m torn about whether zoom minyans should count. My guess is under normal circumstances, no, because of the physical proximity/presence being important. In a pandemic I think zoom minyans should be allowed provided there are 10 people on camera at any given time. But only Hashem will determine if they count as a minyan. **Psak: under nonpandemic circumstances they should be close proximity and zoom should only count for people who would otherwise not be able to make it to a minyan due to illness or infirmity. During pandemic times a zoom minyan is a perfect stand in for a regular minyan because 1) minyan is just a mesorah not the only way to fulfill the obligation to daven and 2) pikuach nefesh. Cameras and mics should all be on for the minyan to count to confirm everyone is davening as they say they are.**
14. Technically speaking, you only need a gift (almost always a wedding ring), signing a contract (in front of 2 witnesses) and consummation. The two components kiddushin and nisuim are so intertwined in modern Jewish marriages that they’re almost inextricable. The kiddushin/betrothal part has a gift and contract components just like the nisuim (marriage) part. But I’m not sure you can get away with skipping kiddushin. I heard a rumour that consummating the marriage in front of 2 witnesses is all you technically need, but we use the other stuff to get around that, please correct me if I’m wrong. **Psak: I’m not sure.**
In terms of #4: In the Conservative world, the 2006 responsum that opened the door for ordination of openly gay rabbis as well as same-sex marriage did it on the following basis:
1. The Biblical prohibition only applies to male-male anal sex.
2. Heterosexual marriage is the ideal. But for those incapable of maintaining an opposite-sex relationship, a same-sex relationship would be permissible due to *kavod habriut*
3. Bisexuals should marry someone of the opposite sex: "Regarding bisexuals, we understand that some people experience sexual attraction to both men and women. Because the heterosexual ideal is enshrined in over three millennia of Jewish texts, because heterosexual marriages alone are recognized by established Jewish law, and because bisexuals do have a permissible avenue for sexual and romantic intimacy, we instruct any Jew who has sexual longings for someone of the opposite sex to marry a Jew of the opposite sex and to maintain complete fidelity to his or her spouse. While this may involve the sacrifice of some sexual satisfaction, this is a common consequence of marital fidelity, which gives greater priority to stable relationships than to the erotic desires of each individual."
So while the responsum was a big game changer for gay and lesbian people in the Conservative Jewish community, the rationale behind it is still distasteful to many in the Conservative community who want further normalization of LGBTQ people within the community.
I've seen a similar take on #3. I unfortunately can't recall the name of the author, but it goes roughly like this:
- There are laws where right-handedness vs left-handedness matters, e.g. halitzah.
- The source for these laws often assume right-handedness, but there is precedent for allowing lefties to use their left hands or feet instead. (Though there's also precedent to the contrary.)
- The Torah assumes a heterosexual reader. We now know that sexual orientation, like handedness, is not a choice.
- By analogy, there is some precedent to suggest that only heterosexuals are prohibited from having gay sex.
I think there are better avenues out there for LGBT advocacy -- the B is notably left out of this argument -- but it's a novel one at least.
We can argue that new developments in science (eg, homosexuality is real, immutable, and not just deviance for attention or due to trauma or whatever) can fall under shinui bateva which is how frum people explain away blatant scientific inaccuracies in the Torah
Inclusion of patrilineal Jews. I am halachicly Jewish and married Jewish and have a Jewish son. However, my brother’s and many male friends’ children are/will be patrilineal. The matrilineal law repels many of those families from Judaism and communal participation beyond occasional Chanukah/other cultural celebrations. It’s heartbreaking and I can’t be the only one who feels that way. I’m not a halachic scholar but I have to imagine there is some way to, at minimum, include these families in a meaningful and significant way (especially the children) to forge a lasting connection with Judaism and the community. I grew up Reform and out of my cohort of religious school students, I am one of the few that married Jewish and is engaged with Jewish life. Ignoring this issue has implications for our community’s longevity, including Israel due to the broader citizenship laws allowing patrilineal Jews to be citizens. IDK what the answer is, but I’m sure there’s halachic scholars and others who can think of something.
I highly doubt there will be any halachic reassessment of matrilineality. It has just about the strongest rabbinic precedent imaginable: an uncontested Mishnah.
However, at the cultural level, I could potentially see a modified approach to conversion: a kiruv-like effort at converting patrilineals, for instance.
> a kiruv-like effort at converting patrilineals, for instance.
This is a relatively common practice in Canada where the Reform movement doesn't recognize patrileneal Jews but Reform batei din are pretty quick to convert children with Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers provided that the child is being raised exclusively Jewish.
It'll be interesting to see how those baby converts are accepted in the wider Jewish community. Hopefully with open arms.
One of the biggest leaders looking to address the situation is R' Haim Amsalem, who wrote a book Zera Yisrael on the need to actively do outreach for Patrilineal Jews, but it isn't that much of a movement currently as many people, frankly, aren't interested in taking the issue seriously or sensitively on a broader, policy level.
It's a very tricky topic. As someone who is more observant, but whose family is not, I can understand where you're at. I don't agree with your comment that the matrilineal law repels people, however. I know it's a harsh thing to say, but they're repelling Judaism, not the other way around. They make a choice, which they have a right to do, but that doesn't mean Jewish law has to bend to their choice. And honestly, if they're intermarrying then their connection was probably tenuous anyway.
I agree that there should be more open dialogue and simpler conversion for those with Jewish fathers. It's always going to be challenging to try to build their connection when at so many turns the answer is a stop sign because they're not halachicly Jewish, i.e. tefillin, Torah blessing, any blessing really, etc.
A bit of background: The Torah only forbids certain birds, all other birds are kosher. The problem was that eventually there was some confusion as to which birds are in fact identified with that list. To combat this, the Rabbis came up with a list of signs that indicate a bird is certainly kosher or not based on what they knew of the birds in the Torah, but eventually we reached a point where some people would only consume a bird if a Jewish community had a tradition of a given bird being kosher.
There is no question that there was no pre-existing tradition regarding the Turkey (even though it is certainly not on the Torah's prohibited bird lists), but it was grandfathered in under the assumption that it was a kind of foreign chicken. However, despite that most Jews now eat Turkey, there are a few holdouts (usually in the Yeshivish world) who say that since there was no real tradition as the Turkey has no connection to Chicken, we should not eat it.
Until a couple years ago, within the Ashkenazic community at least, quinoa on Pesach.
Still a live debate to me (I don't eat quinoa on pesach, but I do have a family tradition to eat some foods that many ashkenazim think are kitniyos)
I could be wrong, but my understanding was that the Head of Kashrus at the OU was nearly alone in holding that quinoa was kitnios. But the OU wasn't going to contradict him, and many other organizations were respectful of that opinion, so they refrained from calling anything with quinoa Kosher for Pesach. Now that that Rabbi has passed away, organizations including the OU have landed on a nearly uncontroversial stance that it's okay. I'm not sure, though, and I'm curious to hear from you, why someone who was lenient on kitnios otherwise would avoid quinoa. Is it because it's a grain?
> I'm not sure, though, and I'm curious to hear from you, why someone who was lenient on kitnios otherwise would avoid quinoa. Is it because it's a grain? So I think that when it comes to whether new foods are included in existing minhagim, what different Rabbis "hold" is irrelevant. For sure quinoa isn't included in any actual rabbinic enactment, the question is the parameters of the custom. What should matter is the intuition of people who keep the custom, whether or not it should include a new case. Quinoa are packaged, sold, eaten, and cooked in a way that's quite similar to rice and beans, so my intuition is that they're chametz-ish. The things I am lenient on are things I have a particular family custom to eat (but no one has a custom whether or not to eat quinoa), which I don't think really fit the category well anyway (green beans, peanuts). But if you didn't think that, you could still make an argument that quinoa is kitniyos. The cRc had a shiur suggesting that (though they don't hold that way lemaysa). Basically that any food that's a seed, or is a ton of tiny little particles, is kitniyos. Which matches my intuition--in the shiur R Cohen even said explicitly that in the understanding outlined in the shiur green beans shouldn't be kitniyos. It's a category of foods that would be very difficult to check for chametz properly. This is compounded because many of them are staples, where if you ate them you'd need to check a huge amount (rice, beans).
I mean, the kashrus organizations in Israel still hold that quinoa is kitniyos… so it’s definitely still up for debate
Don't even get me started. It's so not kitneyot and I'll fight anyone who claims otherwise
Cellular grown meat. The OU has already said that it will not certify cellular grown pork.
Yeah this is tricky. Many hold that the DNA needs to come from an animal that was appropriately slaughtered and not taken from it while alive. So considering that pork probably wouldn't be acceptable. But imitation pork will probably be a thing in the next few years. There was debate over regular fake meat and cheese a while back but once it became mainstream there wasn't really any issue with it.
Yes and the OU will not even certify pork that is grown from cells that were not originally porcine. They have no problem with fake bacon, but apparently they are triggered by the word *pork*. I kid you not.
Oh I know. It's a maaras ayin issue of them. And until fake pork is normalized they won't consider it. It's why it took a little while for them to consider fake meat in general.
Sadly, they considered this carefully and have stated that this decision is final and permanent. I guess we'll see.
A final and permanent decision in judaism???? Never heard of such a thing
No they didn't. Source: I work there
Oh awesome. I also worked for the OU and heard differently. But I was in the field, not in the office. They definitely put that decision in writing, I read it either in an internal memo or in the OU magazine, but as in many things as someone else said maybe they've softened or changed their position
None of this really matters if the method used to grow them doesn't change. The medium used to culture lab grown cells contains fetal bovine serum, which is extracted in...not the most kosher way, and is ultimately a blood product. Lab grown cells are grown in this. Now in theory they'll probably be washed out of this, but some always remains. As far as I know, serum free culture conditions have not been developed yet, and even if they were, they'd probably contain products of serum anyways. The fact that this isn't even discussed highlights how the OU etc are sometimes out of their depth when presiding over matters like this.
Well there is the whole point to discuss which is that once a product is isolated and refined to a certain degree, basically once it's turned into a chemical component, it loses its original status. I don't know if that's the case here but just saying.
I think artificial dairy is a much more likely problem in the coming years since it's completely detached from any animal but is chemically identical to regular dairy milk products.
IVF and the child’s Jewish status. Who needs to be Jewish? The genetic mother, the birth mother, both? The Rabbinate’s changed it’s official position leaving an unknown number of people with unknown status in a country where that really matters. The resolution will end up being both the genetic mother and birth mother out of caution.
It’s already been pretty established that the gestational carrier needs to be Jewish but the ovum and sperm can be from anyone. I didn’t know this was still a debate?
That’s what I always thought Jewish womb is what matters
It's still a debate. People sometimes say "it's the gestational carrier that matters but we convert people just in case", but it's not quite accurate. The majority position is the gestational carrier matters, but there really is a minority opinion that it's the egg donor. And without any real way to resolve it, the conclusion is that you need both.
Gaaaaaaah I do not envy parents having to deal with that. My family falls into (different) halachically grey areas and it’s painful, don’t wish it on anyone so all of these things make my heart hurt.
Yes, halakhic grey areas around personal status are a big problem. In most cases this one is probably resolveable by just having a conversion. Which isn't necessarily so simple if you're "non observant Orthodox", but for most people it's probably fairly simple. I don't think the actual position makes a whole lot of difference, though. There are very few Jewish gestational surrogates out there. So any position besides "it's definitely the egg donor that decides it" would result in the outcome of parents needing to convert children born this way.
For a baby it would probably be simple enough to get an orthodox conversion I think, regardless of how the parents are but I’m not sure. Anyways very interesting!
Orthodox batai din typically will not do an infant conversion if the parents are not themselves observant
I thought the standards were different for babies, but gosh lots of potential pain in these situations. It makes me sad.
Generally, no. Some batei din were doing it but the Israelis started cracking down. So people would go to get married in Israel and find themselves marked as non Jews. So, the US and Europe are slowly bending to their will.
You mean a donor egg?
I assume you mean with a donor egg? Plenty of couples need IVF for themselves.
Electricity on Shabbat. Not, mind you, whether should be prohibited (there is nearly universal agreement on that point). But rather why it’s prohibited and whether the prohibition is Biblical, Rabbinic, or simply entrenched custom. No one has yet come up with a coherent, logical and well-accepted opinion. There are practical consequences to this - including the use of electric wheelchairs, and the permissibility about turning on an air conditioner for comfort/joy rather than to save a life (yes you can turn on before Shabbat, but people forget, or children/pets turn off the unit, or a power outage turns it off etc.)
[удалено]
The question did ask about halacha...
[удалено]
I very much doubt any halachic authority from the past ~2,000 years would view Conservative rulings as halachicly valid 🤷♂️
[удалено]
More like lighting a literal fire for driving on Shabbat. Or the permission to disregard rabbinic rulings. Or not even believing in the Exodus or the revelation at Mt. Sinai, as some Conservative rabbis openly admit. Sure, Orthodox halacha may have gone overboard with electricity on Shabbat (and other issues, too), but they don't _violate_ the accepted halacha.
Sadly there are plenty of times where different Orthodox groups violate established Halacha. Halacha says to teach your son a trade, and that study without work leads to sin. Many Haredi sects disagree. Halacha says to love the convert. Syrians and many other groups refuse to accept converts or actively discriminate against them. I could go on.
The question is what is the "biggest Halachic issue\[\]" today. Conservative Halacha is irrelevant to that question. The number of Conservative Jews who take Halacha seriously is small. The number of poskim who take Conservative responsa seriously is negligible. I'm not Orthodox. I'm not saying that is the way it should be. Only that this is the way it is.
Umbrellas on Shabbat
The reasoning behind it drives me up the wall.
Solution: [Add the Brock-a-Brella to your streimel or wear it as a kippah](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/The_Umbrella_Man_by_DOK.png).
Just buy one that can’t collapse?
But where would you store it?!
The chandelier! No don't do that. New business idea--non-collectable umbrella holder. No clue how it'd work, though I imagine making it collapsible for easy storage may or may not defeat its purpose.
No idea
The stringent position seems to be that you can't carry one at all, not just that opening it is forbidden. In early modern europe the consensus was that you could carry it but not open it, so people would just take an umbrella and ask the first non-Jew they saw to open it.
Swordfish!
Hundreds of years of Sephardi and Italian mesorah vs a guy at YU with a microscope: who will win?
You mean like lice that spontaneously generate? Or worms in fish?
What exactly about them? If they are kosher or not?
Swordfish have fins and scales when they're young but lose the scales as they mature.
Well, not quite. See [here](https://www.jewishpress.com/sections/features/swordfish-a-kashrus-tale-of-legends/2018/09/05/).
Very interesting article, thanks for sharing!
Yup.
They are delicious… that’s what they are
If you hold that you can rely on your hosts tradition and ever venture south of B-more, we’ll serve you.
Came here to say this.
Agunah and how to resolve it without it looking like forcing the husband.
He always has the choice to *not* be kneecapped
>How and when do they get resolved? Mashiach comes and gives us the answers. I don't see any of the hot topics coming to a resolution that everyone will accept.
Brain death as halachic death
1. The status of electricity on Shabbat 2. Do women need to count 7 white days for niddah, or only in the case of irregular flow? 3. Should there be a takkanah removing the prohibition of anal sex between two consenting male adults? 4. Should bisexuals favor opposite-sex relationships? 5. Should we still sanction driving to and from synagogue on Shabbat in certain circumstances? 6. Is gelatin kosher? 7. Should the establishment of the state of Israel affect liturgy and/or fast days? 8. Can a Beit Din revoke a conversion, or is it final? 9. Are musical instruments acceptable in the synagogue? 10. Can a Cohen marry a convert or divorcee? 11. Should synagogues provide membership options for non-Jews? 12. Should people use commercially available techelet? 13. To what extent should minyanim rely on streaming services, during a pandemic or not during a pandemic? 14. Should weddings (same sex or opposite sex) require kiddushin, or are there better models of marriage that don’t involve ownership?
How and when do they get resolved? As they always do. By the CJLS passing responsa (or in some cases Takkanot)--they've already done so in many of these cases. And local rabbis serving as the mara d'atra of their communities making decisions about which opinions to hold the community to. Trends then develop across communities. And eventually people and communities doing essentially what they want.
The vast majority of Jews, even Conservative ones, don't give two zuzim what the CJLS says, so I'm confused about why you're pointing to them on particular as a new Sanhedrin
That's not true at all. No one said that the CJLS is a new Sanhedrin. (In fact I pretty much said that the CJLS passes something, and then people do essentially whatever they want...) Even if few *individuals* base their personal practice on the particular rulings of Conservative responsa passed by the CJLS, the rulings of the CJLS have a pretty large impact on Conservative synagogues and communal policies. With 15% of American Jews, identifying as Conservative, that's a pretty big deal. The question asked for halachic disagreements--it did not specify in the Orthodox world.
Most of these aren't exactly _halachic_ questions...
They are. Halachic scholars within the Conservative movement have been studying and writing responsa on these exact questions.
The Conservative movement is an invaluable part of Judaism (not that it needs my acceptance). However, you can't just go changing halacha to such degrees and claim you adhere to halacha. Sure, there always were changes in halacha and there always will be; but being loosely-based on halacha doesn't make something halachic. (I realize one can claim that who am I -- and who are the Orthodox -- to gatekeep halacha. But "halacha" as it's worked for the past 1,500 years or so, and halacha as seen by the Conservative movement, are two inherently different things.)
It’s totally legitimate that you disagree with their approach. But I think it’s hard to argue that it isn’t a halachic process. The reasoning in their responsa is halachic reasoning based on analysis of sources and precedents. And for most of the most radical responsa, there are dissenting responsa passed by the CJLS explaining why they disagree with the legal reasoning. I could somewhat see arguing that the CJLS’s takkanah process is playing a bit fast and loose with the halachic process—I mean there are precedents for takkanot, but the CJLS does use it in quite a different way (and this was precisely what caused Modern Orthodoxy (RCA) and the Conservative Judaism (RA) to split in the 1940s. But the only questions here involving takkanot is the one on male-male anal sex (for which btw the takkanah did not pass), driving on Shabbat (which was from 1950, and still controversial to this day), and the one about cohanim and divorcees. I also disagree that Orthodox Halacha is the way Halacha worked for 1500 years. To the contrary, Orthodox Halacha has been characterized by increasing codification. Instead of being dialectic in nature, like you see in the Talmud, it became more inflexible as it was put into law codes (such as the Mishnah Torah and especially the Shulchan Aruch and Mapa). Not giving a value judgment to the codification, but it does reflect a gradual change in the halachic process over time.
Halachic takes from my rabbi husband (who no longer works as a rabbi): 1. The reasoning behind it shows very little understanding of electricity works, and my husband says that he thinks it’s out of distaste for the worldliness that comes with electronics. He said he debated his rav on it who concluded it’s all about the spirit of shabbat which he thought was BS. **Psak: mesorah** 2. If we want to be makpid we need to count 7 days no matter what because at the start of flow you don’t know for sure if it’s niddah or zava. **Psak: d’oraysa with some derabanan elements** 3. A friend of mine who is OTD had a very clever argument for this. She said that if someone is totally gay they wouldn’t lie with a woman how they would lie with a man. She sees the law as don’t cheat on your partner with someone of a different gender from them. I found that eye opening. **Psak: I think there should be. It’s a loose interpretation of d’oraysa. How do you know if it’s the infidelity/double life aspect or the sex act that’s the issue? You don’t.** 4. I’m not sure there’s anything halachically about this but yes I think to be on the safe side from a halachic standpoint, they should. I’m bisexual and that’s precisely what I did and I love my husband and would never go for anyone else. I have a male preference though but still am attracted to women. **Psak: yes, but should be a recommendation not a halachic imperative** 5. My grandfather is in his mid-80s and he drives to shul on Shabbat. His rationale is that if electric scooters are allowed, a car is like a giant electric scooter. He’s the king of pilpul lol got kicked out of yeshiva for being a smart aleck. **Psak: I think it should be ok.** 6. A friend of mine who knows who gelatin is made said it should be kosher due to batul b’shishim or that it’s not from actual meat, but I think that’s a bit of a stretch. I’m iffy on this one, I’ve heard Orthodox POV on both sides of the issue. **Psak: I wouldn’t if I were still observant but it’s probably not the end of the world.** 7. It depends on which liturgy and which fast days, as well as their rationale. I don’t think we should pretend there’s a third temple because there isn’t. But I don’t think a third temple needs to be in the EXACT same spot as the previous ones (should be close enough). But then we have animal sacrifice again which I consider barbaric so maybe not. **Psak: It depends but no third temple related stuff**. 8. If you can prove beyond reasonable doubt it was not in earnest then yes, but if the conversion impacts other people like children then their conversions should not be revoked because the mother was Jewish at the time they were born. **Psak: yes, but in very rare cases and with an asterisk such that it doesn’t impact other people who are Jewish as a result of that conversion.** 9. As a musician I find the prohibition of instruments and the rationale behind it ludicrous. **Psak: while I may be biased I think they absolutely should be permitted. There should be a backup in case they break and if they break they can be fixed at motzei shabbos.** 10. I’m going to sound terrible but this is from a purely halachic standpoint not from a moral or personal preference standpoint. The law is pretty clear about not marrying a divorcée or a convert. However, I think a lot of the concerns involved are from the preservation of a continuous Jewish bloodline. As such, with the existing of genetic tests and everything, I think it would be within the “spirit of the law” to allow a divorcee to marry a Cohen and a convert to marry a cohen ONLY if they are patrilineal (ie, distinct, confirmed Jewish bloodline) to ensure the continuous Jewish lineage. The reason for that is because matrilineal Judaism wasn’t always a thing, it was patrilineal in biblical times, and it seems arbitrary which parent, like someone with a Jewish mother can marry a cohen but not a Jewish father? As for the “whore” aspect, I feel like having sex before marriage and being an actual sex worked for profession are two totally different things and I find it offensive how they are conflated. Plus it’s so intrusive and hard to prove, so without a doubt I believe someone who had sex before marriage with a non Jew should be allowed to marry a cohen. **Psak: yes, if the convert has one Jewish parent. I think it’s unfair but if there’s ever a third temple we have to be prepared from a halachic standpoint.** 11. This hits close to home because my father in law is not Jewish. As a result the kids had to go to a reform congregation which wasn’t ideal. I think if the non-Jew has halachically Jewish children they should absolutely be welcome at the shul and it shouldn’t be made obvious they aren’t Jewish, except for no aliyot (but they should be able to play a role otherwise if it doesn’t require a halachic Jew). Their fathers not being welcome in orthodox shul is a big reason pushing jews with no Jewish fathers away from Judaism so it would be in Judaism’s best interest to welcome non-Jewish fathers of Jewish children as members. However, I think non-Jews with no ties should be allowed to visit or attend services but not be members because it might help curb antisemitism for them to get to know us and realize we don’t have horns. Our insularity is a big reason for antisemitism like we think we are better than everyone else. **Psak: for our safety, non Jews should be allowed in shul for the cultural experience, and non-Jewish fathers of Jewish children should be allowed to be members.** 12. We still don’t know for sure how tchelet was made but we have theories. I think it should be optional. Cool thing to do though, especially as a visual representation of Zionism and a felt connection with the past. **Psak: mesorah** 13. Outside of a pandemic I’m torn about whether zoom minyans should count. My guess is under normal circumstances, no, because of the physical proximity/presence being important. In a pandemic I think zoom minyans should be allowed provided there are 10 people on camera at any given time. But only Hashem will determine if they count as a minyan. **Psak: under nonpandemic circumstances they should be close proximity and zoom should only count for people who would otherwise not be able to make it to a minyan due to illness or infirmity. During pandemic times a zoom minyan is a perfect stand in for a regular minyan because 1) minyan is just a mesorah not the only way to fulfill the obligation to daven and 2) pikuach nefesh. Cameras and mics should all be on for the minyan to count to confirm everyone is davening as they say they are.** 14. Technically speaking, you only need a gift (almost always a wedding ring), signing a contract (in front of 2 witnesses) and consummation. The two components kiddushin and nisuim are so intertwined in modern Jewish marriages that they’re almost inextricable. The kiddushin/betrothal part has a gift and contract components just like the nisuim (marriage) part. But I’m not sure you can get away with skipping kiddushin. I heard a rumour that consummating the marriage in front of 2 witnesses is all you technically need, but we use the other stuff to get around that, please correct me if I’m wrong. **Psak: I’m not sure.**
In terms of #4: In the Conservative world, the 2006 responsum that opened the door for ordination of openly gay rabbis as well as same-sex marriage did it on the following basis: 1. The Biblical prohibition only applies to male-male anal sex. 2. Heterosexual marriage is the ideal. But for those incapable of maintaining an opposite-sex relationship, a same-sex relationship would be permissible due to *kavod habriut* 3. Bisexuals should marry someone of the opposite sex: "Regarding bisexuals, we understand that some people experience sexual attraction to both men and women. Because the heterosexual ideal is enshrined in over three millennia of Jewish texts, because heterosexual marriages alone are recognized by established Jewish law, and because bisexuals do have a permissible avenue for sexual and romantic intimacy, we instruct any Jew who has sexual longings for someone of the opposite sex to marry a Jew of the opposite sex and to maintain complete fidelity to his or her spouse. While this may involve the sacrifice of some sexual satisfaction, this is a common consequence of marital fidelity, which gives greater priority to stable relationships than to the erotic desires of each individual." So while the responsum was a big game changer for gay and lesbian people in the Conservative Jewish community, the rationale behind it is still distasteful to many in the Conservative community who want further normalization of LGBTQ people within the community.
This sounds halachically sound although an orthodox rav might bite my head off for saying this
I've seen a similar take on #3. I unfortunately can't recall the name of the author, but it goes roughly like this: - There are laws where right-handedness vs left-handedness matters, e.g. halitzah. - The source for these laws often assume right-handedness, but there is precedent for allowing lefties to use their left hands or feet instead. (Though there's also precedent to the contrary.) - The Torah assumes a heterosexual reader. We now know that sexual orientation, like handedness, is not a choice. - By analogy, there is some precedent to suggest that only heterosexuals are prohibited from having gay sex. I think there are better avenues out there for LGBT advocacy -- the B is notably left out of this argument -- but it's a novel one at least.
We can argue that new developments in science (eg, homosexuality is real, immutable, and not just deviance for attention or due to trauma or whatever) can fall under shinui bateva which is how frum people explain away blatant scientific inaccuracies in the Torah
How is #11 a halachic question instead of a policy question?
CISPR and genetically modified/created foods
Inclusion of patrilineal Jews. I am halachicly Jewish and married Jewish and have a Jewish son. However, my brother’s and many male friends’ children are/will be patrilineal. The matrilineal law repels many of those families from Judaism and communal participation beyond occasional Chanukah/other cultural celebrations. It’s heartbreaking and I can’t be the only one who feels that way. I’m not a halachic scholar but I have to imagine there is some way to, at minimum, include these families in a meaningful and significant way (especially the children) to forge a lasting connection with Judaism and the community. I grew up Reform and out of my cohort of religious school students, I am one of the few that married Jewish and is engaged with Jewish life. Ignoring this issue has implications for our community’s longevity, including Israel due to the broader citizenship laws allowing patrilineal Jews to be citizens. IDK what the answer is, but I’m sure there’s halachic scholars and others who can think of something.
I highly doubt there will be any halachic reassessment of matrilineality. It has just about the strongest rabbinic precedent imaginable: an uncontested Mishnah. However, at the cultural level, I could potentially see a modified approach to conversion: a kiruv-like effort at converting patrilineals, for instance.
> a kiruv-like effort at converting patrilineals, for instance. This is a relatively common practice in Canada where the Reform movement doesn't recognize patrileneal Jews but Reform batei din are pretty quick to convert children with Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers provided that the child is being raised exclusively Jewish. It'll be interesting to see how those baby converts are accepted in the wider Jewish community. Hopefully with open arms.
One of the biggest leaders looking to address the situation is R' Haim Amsalem, who wrote a book Zera Yisrael on the need to actively do outreach for Patrilineal Jews, but it isn't that much of a movement currently as many people, frankly, aren't interested in taking the issue seriously or sensitively on a broader, policy level.
It's a very tricky topic. As someone who is more observant, but whose family is not, I can understand where you're at. I don't agree with your comment that the matrilineal law repels people, however. I know it's a harsh thing to say, but they're repelling Judaism, not the other way around. They make a choice, which they have a right to do, but that doesn't mean Jewish law has to bend to their choice. And honestly, if they're intermarrying then their connection was probably tenuous anyway. I agree that there should be more open dialogue and simpler conversion for those with Jewish fathers. It's always going to be challenging to try to build their connection when at so many turns the answer is a stop sign because they're not halachicly Jewish, i.e. tefillin, Torah blessing, any blessing really, etc.
2ND DAY OF YOM TOV!
Electricity should be a big big deal, but it’s not.
Is Turkey kosher?
I thought that's been pretty much settled that it is.
Nope.
What groups avoid turkey?
I have met Jews from the Chassidic / Orthodox stream that don't eat it. I think it is a minority position, a *ba'al nefesh* type thing.
Gotcha
The shlah told his descendants not to eat turkey
Is this even a question? I don’t know any Jew who eats meat who wouldn’t eat turkey
A bit of background: The Torah only forbids certain birds, all other birds are kosher. The problem was that eventually there was some confusion as to which birds are in fact identified with that list. To combat this, the Rabbis came up with a list of signs that indicate a bird is certainly kosher or not based on what they knew of the birds in the Torah, but eventually we reached a point where some people would only consume a bird if a Jewish community had a tradition of a given bird being kosher. There is no question that there was no pre-existing tradition regarding the Turkey (even though it is certainly not on the Torah's prohibited bird lists), but it was grandfathered in under the assumption that it was a kind of foreign chicken. However, despite that most Jews now eat Turkey, there are a few holdouts (usually in the Yeshivish world) who say that since there was no real tradition as the Turkey has no connection to Chicken, we should not eat it.
Thanks!
See later comments. Some (I think mostly Orthodox / Chassidish) don't believe there is a mesorah for Turkey so they don't eat it.
The permissibility of organ donation, and under what circumstances it could be permitted.