Jewish Law Children and Stepparents

[meltzerboy]

Hi Meltzerboy;

I looked up the information regarding the restriction on the consumption of fish and meat or eating fish and milk together, and also what the health issues were about:

Also, I had checked on some other information regarding Passover: Kashrut observance between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews:

Traditional Forbidden Chametz & Foods on Pesach
Ashkenazi and Sephardic Passover Food Traditions and Prohibitions

Read more at Suite101: Traditional Forbidden Chametz & Foods on Pesach: Ashkenazi and Sephardic Passover Food Traditions and Prohibitions | Suite101.com malysastrattonlouk.suite101.com/traditional-forbidden-chametz–foods-on-pesach-a209687#ixzz1ji3zlUcV

Yes, MorningStar, the separation of fish and meat is still observed (as is the separation of fish and milk among some), but separate dishes are not required, as you point out. They may not be eaten in immediate succession without a little time elapsing and rinsing one’s mouth with water or spirits. During the Passover Seder, gefilte fish is generally served before the main dish. The definition of chametz during Passover can be somewhat complicated, particularly with regard to grains, and there are differences in practice among various Jewish communities. As you know, Jewish Law on many issues, not only kashrut and stepparents, is endlessly debatable and subject to interpretation. Thanks for the links.

 

[Kaninchen]

Isn’t there a case proposed in Judaism by some Orthodox Jews, based on Torah or Talmud teaching, for vegetarianism?

Hm, we’re in the world of ‘on the one hand, while on the other hand but on yet another hand . . .’ There’s certainly no reason not to be vegetarian.

As you undoubtedly know, even Orthodox Jewish vegetarians have certain challenges in keeping kosher, such as inspecting berries for worms. And, I believe, dates are also problematic with regard to kashrut. Not to mention the grain controversy during Passover, as well as the nuances surrounding kosher wine and cheese.

I realize all of the above is off topic, but am I correct about some of this?

Yes, it’s only the rules about once-living things that you avoid, you still have to Kosher your lettuce.

 

[MorningSong51]

Yes, MorningStar, the separation of fish and meat is still observed (as is the separation of fish and milk among some), but separate dishes are not required, as you point out. They may not be eaten in immediate succession without a little time elapsing and rinsing one’s mouth with water or spirits. During the Passover Seder, gefilte fish is generally served before the main dish. The definition of chametz during Passover can be somewhat complicated, particularly with regard to grains, and there are differences in practice among various Jewish communities. As you know, Jewish Law on many issues, not only kashrut and stepparents, is endlessly debatable and subject to interpretation. Thanks for the links.

Hi Meltzerboy;

You gave a hint out! (popcorn, is still considered vegetarian kosher, you know) - yes, the articles that I’ve read regarding adoption does indicate that there are no formal procedure of adoption in Jewish law. Adoption as it exists in civil law is irrelevant, because civil adoption is essentially a transfer of title (word usage) from one parent to another, and in Jewish law, parents do not own their children. However, the Torah does have certain laws that are relevant in circumstances where a child is raised by someone other than the birth parents., however! and in light of this info, and adding a comment in my own defense, World War II - with the fact that some children were taken from Jewish families and raised in other (religious) homes. There were some thought that the children, and during war time, were to be raised (in some way) as to following the customs of the cultural - these children, did not return back to their parents - obviously in lieu of their deaths. However, relatives/grandparents/friends/community had been searching for these lost children - that were hidden, so adoption/stepparent and I think, falls underneath this.

Another thought, and two, I would imagine that one can view it from this perspective, The Mishnah taught that both men and women are obligated to carry out all commandments concerning their fathers. (Mishnah Kiddushin 1:7; Babylonian Talmud Kiddushin 29a, 30b.) Rav Judah interpreted the Mishnah to mean that both men and women are bound to perform all precepts concerning a father that are incumbent upon a son to perform for his father. (Babylonian Talmud Kiddushin 30b.)

and, I have “just” understood this phrase, as well: Again, if I’m not answering your question directly, its not because I’m being evasive - its just I’m trying to understand your position on the question: Shema, bni, mussar avicha, v’al titosh Torat imecha. / Hear, my son, the mussar (self-improvement teachings) of your father, but don’t forget the Torah of your mother."

Many issues - and under the Orthodox, I see there are many more…

One has an obligation to respect each of these people while they remain married to their natural parent, but this is part of the obligation to respect the latter and not expressive of any relationship to the step-parents themselves.

One is obligated to respect his father’s wife even if she is not his mother as long as his father is alive, as this is part of the obligation to respect his father. And similarly one is required to respect his mother’s husband as long as she is alive. But this obligation ends with her death.[3]

The Shulhan Arukh here adds, “In any event, the proper thing is to respect them even after the death of the natural parent,” and this advice is easily and properly extended to adoptive parents when neither is the biological parent

 

[MorningSong51]

Indeed, what possible objection could anyone raise to people supporting their adoptive or step-parents, not sitting in their seat or addressing them by their first name, and so on? Undertaking these formal expressions of respect and fear cannot possibly violate any halakhic norm and are, as the Shulhan Arukh states, the proper thing to do. Significantly, though, when the Sefer ha-Hinukh discusses this mitzvah, he extends the rationale beyond the issue of creation:

A man should realize that his mother and father are the cause of his being in the world, and therefore it is truly proper that he render them all the honor and do them all the service he can. For they brought him into the world, and they labored greatly on his behalf during his childhood.[4]

Again, this was pointed in the book of Tobit 4:3, 4:4 and 4:5, see Proverbs 1:8 - even though, that the parent maybe a step parent - I would think that this falls under the comment listed in the previous post, underneath the category: e, The Mishnah taught that both men and women are obligated to carry out all commandments concerning their fathers. (Mishnah Kiddushin 1:7; Babylonian Talmud Kiddushin 29a, 30b.) Rav Judah interpreted the Mishnah to mean that both men and women are bound to perform all precepts concerning a father that are incumbent upon a son to perform for his father. (Babylonian Talmud Kiddushin 30b.)

lookstein.org/articles/mourning_adoptive.htm

One must honor and respect his father-in-law and his mother-in-law (as we find that King David honored King Saul, who was his father- in-law, by calling him “my father”; see I Samuel 24:12). Likewise one must honor and respect grandparents. Also implied in this Mitzvah is that one must honor his elder brother and sister.

ahavat-israel.com/am/parents.php

One must honor step-parents so long as their spouses are still alive, as a function of the mitzvah of honoring their spouses (the biological parents).

It is appropriate to continue that honor even after the death of the direct parents, although this is not as strong an obligation.

(Code of Jewish Law Yoreh Deah 240:21)

 

[MorningSong51]

Morningsong, you can’t seem to answer what amounts to a simple “yes” or “no” question.

Throwing oodles of literary widgets at the questions doesn’t make it disappear. I’m going to try this ONE MORE TIME.

Re:

How do these interface with the clear law set forth in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, and in light of Genesis 38: 1-10?

You have clearly stated, according to Talmudic resources, including Midrash, that whoever raises a child shall have that child known by his name. The Torah says, in the case specific to the brother of the deceased, that the child (fathered by the brother of the deceased) shall be known by the deceased’s name.

Now, does this Midrash make note of the Torah law? Yes or no.

If yes, does it provide a caveat that is doesn’t apply to the Torah situation? Yes or no

I don’t care to read about how Shmuel’s cousin was adopted and raised by Hannah and her husband Levi and what the Midrash says about who he takes care of when at 58 he finds out he’s a cousin and his parents are still alive. Quit obfuscating the issue with random stuff that has no bearing, unless you are willing to explain how it does have bearing.

Further, passages from the New Testament have no bearing. I’m asking specifically about how the Torah interfaces with Midrash. Nothing else. I don’t care what the New Testament, Auto trader magazine, or any other written material has to say about sorta-kinda-not-about-the-question-at-all topics.

I’ll put this in bold, please answer only the bold or consider your time wasted because I won’t read it. I want to see YES or NO. Once you establish that, feel free to expound on WHY you answered YES or NO.

**Now, does this Midrash make note of the Torah law? Yes or no.

If yes, does it provide a caveat that is doesn’t apply to the Torah situation as described? Yes or no

If yes, what does it say. If no, no reply needed other than “no”.

Understand my question? Again, a yes or no reply.
**

…see previous post under Meltzerboy and I hope this has answered your questions of yes and no. Jonbhorton, years ago I had worked at the Jewish Community Center in the nursing home and assist living facilities - I started to become aware of the dietary laws and the separating of dishes from meat and dairy products. Also, so that you know, as painful as this will sound - I (only on one occasion) made the mistake of telling a friend, Ab, that the kitchen put “cool whip” on the jello during a “meat” meal…it was a very painful experience that I had encountered afterwards - from a few (gulp…) members, the words went somewhat like this, “There is to be “NO” dairy products served with Meat products” …My Hebrew learning at that moment had increased.

Later, some of the members - spouses that had no partners, that you will find that there is “no” differences on how close they became to each other. Each person looks after the other, truly this was an enriching experience for me to work there.

 

[meltzerboy]

Indeed, what possible objection could anyone raise to people supporting their adoptive or step-parents, not sitting in their seat or addressing them by their first name, and so on? Undertaking these formal expressions of respect and fear cannot possibly violate any halakhic norm and are, as the Shulhan Arukh states, the proper thing to do. Significantly, though, when the Sefer ha-Hinukh discusses this mitzvah, he extends the rationale beyond the issue of creation:

A man should realize that his mother and father are the cause of his being in the world, and therefore it is truly proper that he render them all the honor and do them all the service he can. For they brought him into the world, and they labored greatly on his behalf during his childhood.[4]

Again, this was pointed in the book of Tobit 4:3, 4:4 and 4:5, see Proverbs 1:8 - even though, that the parent maybe a step parent - I would think that this falls under the comment listed in the previous post, underneath the category: e, The Mishnah taught that both men and women are obligated to carry out all commandments concerning their fathers. (Mishnah Kiddushin 1:7; Babylonian Talmud Kiddushin 29a, 30b.) Rav Judah interpreted the Mishnah to mean that both men and women are bound to perform all precepts concerning a father that are incumbent upon a son to perform for his father. (Babylonian Talmud Kiddushin 30b.)

lookstein.org/articles/mourning_adoptive.htm

One must honor and respect his father-in-law and his mother-in-law (as we find that King David honored King Saul, who was his father- in-law, by calling him “my father”; see I Samuel 24:12). Likewise one must honor and respect grandparents. Also implied in this Mitzvah is that one must honor his elder brother and sister.

ahavat-israel.com/am/parents.php

One must honor step-parents so long as their spouses are still alive, as a function of the mitzvah of honoring their spouses (the biological parents).

It is appropriate to continue that honor even after the death of the direct parents, although this is not as strong an obligation.

(Code of Jewish Law Yoreh Deah 240:21)

Another point: a child is NOT required to say Kaddish for a stepparent who has died, for the traditional 11 months, although it is permissible particularly if one feels a strong obligation. However, a child is required to say Kaddish for a biological parent and an adoptive parent for the full 11 months. As you may know, the mourning period for a deceased parent is more intense and longer than for other relatives, including a child, because it is our parents who brought us into this life and raised us.

 

[MorningSong51]

Another point: a child is NOT required to say Kaddish for a stepparent who has died, for the traditional 11 months, although it is permissible particularly if one feels a strong obligation. However, a child is required to say Kaddish for a biological parent and an adoptive parent for the full 11 months. As you may know, the mourning period for a deceased parent is more intense and longer than for other relatives, including a child, because it is our parents who brought us into this life and raised us.

Yes, thank you…as I wanted to point out, “One is obligated to respect his father’s wife even if she is not his mother as long as his father is alive, as this is part of the obligation to respect his father.” - following this thought to it, “both men and women are bound to perform all precepts concerning a father that are incumbent upon a son to perform for his father.”

Even though and understanding your comment, and repeating this, the law, a common law, refers that we honor our parents, whether they are adoptive parent to child and or step parent to child this should have “no” boundaries - separateness (or to be separated) as toward distinction. The law, state specifically “To Honor” - Honor by definition, is perceived quality of worthiness and respectability that affects both the social standing and the self-evaluation of an individual. Honour (honor), is adherence to what is right, and so where is “to Love” - When God gave the first commandment, or mitzvah - He stated, '“I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods in My presence…” and in Deuteronomy 6:5,“Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” so the first commandment is asking “us to remember” who lead them out of Egypt and also to not worship any other gods" and in verse out of Deuteronomy, the command/mitzvah is asking us “**To Love” God with all our soul, mind and heart. **

You can ask for respect, to honor - as to remember, “mother and father are the cause of his being in the world, and therefore it is truly proper that he render them all the honor and do them all the service he can.” but what does it mean to “To Love” - in the verse "Love the Lord your God - is He demanding us to Love Him in this verse? It was out of “Love” God remembered (Exodus 3) and in the verse “I have heard them crying out” and “I am concerned about their suffering’ which draws from the next verse, 8** So I have come down to rescue** them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey” So doesn’t this prompt the law as it states, “as to remember our parents” - as either being one parent, our biological parent/ adoptive parents and the other (might be) a stepparent, but nevertheless, we “do” this out of love for them. The gemmatriah of the word ahava (love) is 13 the same as for the word echad (one). Total love demands singular devotion. One can only truly fully love one spouse or ideal. If so how did the Torah demand love for fellow Jews once we were already commanded to love God our Lord? If the heart is filled with love for God where will there be room for love of fellow men? The answer is that the Torah demands love to one subject, God. If one sees souls and not bodies, then one sees the Divine in others and that Divinity is what is beloved. (per quote)

Underneath the law, “love thy neighbor as thyself” …Who then is my neighbor?

 

[MorningSong51]

Finishing a thought: (on the per quote) If you love your spouse you love her children who are extensions of the spouse. “You are children to God,” according to the Torah, therefore, love of God demands love for the Jewish soul that emerges from Him.

 

[MorningSong51]

Another point: a child is NOT required to say Kaddish for a stepparent who has died, for the traditional 11 months, although it is permissible particularly if one feels a strong obligation. However, a child is required to say Kaddish for a biological parent and an adoptive parent for the full 11 months. As you may know, the mourning period for a deceased parent is more intense and longer than for other relatives, including a child, because it is our parents who brought us into this life and raised us.

Hi Meltzerboy;

…I hope that letter made some sense, if not - again, toss it.

Not trying to make this into a long discussion, and again, understanding your point, however, even though that the stepparent brings in a new marriage, and also is married to the biological father, the step parent may give birth to other children while in the marriage - all children within that relationship are considered apart of that marriage. Also, looking at the fact that a step parents - whether they come into the marriage without child or that they have children during the relationship, or that they have children from a previous marriage and bring them into that relationship, again either way - they are extensions of the spouse.
Also, you have to consider - and according to traditional settings of the belief in a Reform, Conservative and/or Orthodox, and considering this to begin with, how the spouse will “bring - in” that relationship and how receptive the family will be. There are some traditions, although, a very old tradition - that the woman has to wait a certain period of time, in some cultures, and live with the family for a period of at least 5 years. In all, the average time is about 7 years. The tradition is lengthy but the marriage between families is taken seriously. The family, at best, wants to be sure that the marriage, since they are bringing in children, is a success - a very old Orthodox custom, you might even check with Sephardi customs, as I’m not sure of the waiting period for the arrangements of the couple, as we see some customs are determined at birth. I have a tendency to take on more a Orthodox view, when it comes to certain issue (family law) - as again, and stressing this point, I have to lean toward that direction. Although I have learned more about other cultures, as well as, the Jewish law. The Jewish law has been a lot of help - in this direction.

You had mentioned the Kaddish, as we look at the death of Abraham with Ismael and Isaac. Even though, Hagar, being outside the scope of the marriage - the child is considered an extension of that relationship - even though, Ishmael’s children were said not to be present, at the time. Again, different issues - and accordingly, what the obligations are - but again, it is always a personal choice.

 

[meltzerboy]

Hi Meltzerboy;

…I hope that letter made some sense, if not - again, toss it.

Not trying to make this into a long discussion, and again, understanding your point, however, even though that the stepparent brings in a new marriage, and also is married to the biological father, the step parent may give birth to other children while in the marriage - all children within that relationship are considered apart of that marriage. Also, looking at the fact that a step parents - whether they come into the marriage without child or that they have children during the relationship, or that they have children from a previous marriage and bring them into that relationship, again either way - they are extensions of the spouse.
Also, you have to consider - and according to traditional settings of the belief in a Reform, Conservative and/or Orthodox, and considering this to begin with, how the spouse will “bring - in” that relationship and how receptive the family will be. There are some traditions, although, a very old tradition - that the woman has to wait a certain period of time, in some cultures, and live with the family for a period of at least 5 years. In all, the average time is about 7 years. The tradition is lengthy but the marriage between families is taken seriously. The family, at best, wants to be sure that the marriage, since they are bringing in children, is a success - a very old Orthodox custom, you might even check with Sephardi customs, as I’m not sure of the waiting period for the arrangements of the couple, as we see some customs are determined at birth. I have a tendency to take on more a Orthodox view, when it comes to certain issue (family law) - as again, and stressing this point, I have to lean toward that direction. Although I have learned more about other cultures, as well as, the Jewish law. The Jewish law has been a lot of help - in this direction.

You had mentioned the Kaddish, as we look at the death of Abraham with Ismael and Isaac. Even though, Hagar, being outside the scope of the marriage - the child is considered an extension of that relationship - even though, Ishmael’s children were said not to be present, at the time. Again, different issues - and accordingly, what the obligations are - but again, it is always a personal choice.

Yes, I enjoyed your letter, MorningStar. You certainly have an interesting background, which I suppose has given you a much broader perspective on topics such as this. Thanks again!

 

[MorningSong51]

Yes, I enjoyed your letter, MorningStar. You certainly have an interesting background, which I suppose has given you a much broader perspective on topics such as this. Thanks again!

Meltzerboy - I hope you don’t mind if I brought this thread up, again. I’m sorry if I didn’t reply back but there’s something that I read which peaked my interest, tremendously - and one that I really never thought about nor did I know that there would be some twist to it. I’m coming to you with the question because I know you like to read about Jewish law, as much as I do - there is always something “new” around the bend, isn’t there?

Jonbhorton brought the subject up in his post - although it doesn’t have anything to do (or maybe it does) with the initial question, the topic nevertheless is a very good question, I hope this can be discussed, perhaps on a new thread to bring some understanding.

I have to write this comment to Jonbhorton, the question you asked was so very well asked -

Originally Posted by jonbhorton

The plain text says: don’t boil a kid in its mother’s milk. Pretty straightforward. I can see the moral thought behind it. It screams imitation, or semblance to, the pagan sacrificial cultures surrounding the people of Israel.

But then in Genesis 18, Abraham serves God meat and dairy. Two kinds of dairy were served actually. Milk and butter, along with a calf:

1. What!?! He serves GOD meat and dairy?! How on earth is this reconciled?

When reading about the Patriarchs out of the bible (O.T) Adam, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham, and I’ve asked this question once before, I noticed while re-reading Genesis 18 it states, “4 Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree.” and as I remember the passage, Abraham had “hurried” to meet them and bowed low to the ground. However, the emphasizes is on this part of scripture, “3 He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord” - there another verse that (might) connect - Numbers 6:26 “God will show you favor and give you peace”, favor or goodwill. Synonyms: kindness, kindliness, love, Chesed, The Hebrew noun khesed or chesed (חסד) is the Hebrew word for “kindness.” It is also commonly translated as “loving-kindness,” or “love”. The only other verse that I found in the Old Testament, but it was Noah who had found favor in the eyes of the LORD - was this a grace or “found favor” free from the law?

I really don’t want to leave some of the N.T passages out of this discussion but for the sake of understanding of that law in the Hebrew bible (the Tanakh) I asking to center around Abraham - and kosher laws. Where the laws on Kosher given at that time? and speaking about the Noahide code at that time?

When we read Genesis (and after the flood) God gives Noah, seven commandments - on what day was the laws (on Sinai) given? and where in the Noahide laws did the codification of meat and dairy product expanded on the separation between meat from dairy - in Abraham day? Also, what does Shavout mean in Hebrew? When Abraham said to God “Have I found favor” - was he describing the fact that he had walked blamelessly in the law or in some other way to have found favor - like Enoch and Noah? Why does there seem to be steps - before God appears to Abraham? Did the law exist before the giving of the Torah? Could certain laws carry through to Moses - and the finalization of the law, be divinely and blessed by God at Sinai, on Shavout?

Let me put it another way, obviously there was a law before Sinai - the Noahide commandments so was legal system present at the beginning and did it take form? The Noahide laws consist of seven commandments; six prohibitions relating to idolatry, blasphemy, sexual offenses, consuming flesh cut from the limb of a living animal; bloodshed and theft. In the garden, Adam was “Given” a commandment on what “Not” to eat - and I quote "Bereishit - Genesis - Chapter 2, 16. And the Lord God commanded man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat. 7. But of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die.”

So there was some prohibition on “what” Adam could and could not eat - so the separating actually begins in the garden, 29. And God said, “Behold, I have given you every seed bearing herb, which is upon the surface of the entire earth, and every tree that has seed bearing fruit; it will be yours for food. 30. And to all the beasts of the earth and to all the fowl of the heavens, and to everything that moves upon the earth, in which there is a living spirit, every green herb to eat,” and it was so."

 

[MorningSong51]

Meltzerboy, sorry for the long post but I have to give it a good chuckle - and yet, I’m amazed at the question that was asked…